Revision as of 05:37, 8 March 2013 editCallanecc (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators73,478 edits →Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:16, 8 March 2013 edit undoDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,337 edits →Response by J. Johnson: once again, a 3RR warning does not mean that an editor has hit 4RR - I can see why this editor was blocked in 2007 for failure to get a clue and creating a hostile editing environmentNext edit → | ||
Line 321: | Line 321: | ||
**Agreed. I was involved in the content dispute for a short while but dropped out in December. I also mistakenly warned Elvey about 3RR (see my post at the Village pump technical as the addition of a 'see also' produced an edit summary calling it a revert). Elvey's response was the templated warning "Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates" and despite my apology and explanation he maintained his accusation that I'd abused the template and that in fact he hadn't exceeded 2RR even (he had). I mention all of this not just because he was being a bit aggressive but because he must be aware of my involvement and that I wasn't supporting him in the dispute. If JJ hadn't notified me (neutrally) I wouldn't be aware of this, so I agree that there is inappropriate canvassing. ] (]) 06:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | **Agreed. I was involved in the content dispute for a short while but dropped out in December. I also mistakenly warned Elvey about 3RR (see my post at the Village pump technical as the addition of a 'see also' produced an edit summary calling it a revert). Elvey's response was the templated warning "Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates" and despite my apology and explanation he maintained his accusation that I'd abused the template and that in fact he hadn't exceeded 2RR even (he had). I mention all of this not just because he was being a bit aggressive but because he must be aware of my involvement and that I wasn't supporting him in the dispute. If JJ hadn't notified me (neutrally) I wouldn't be aware of this, so I agree that there is inappropriate canvassing. ] (]) 06:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
:::*Oh. My. God. Your accusation is BLATANTLY false, Doug, . You did abuse the template. I thought you finally realized that, indeed, I hadn't exceeded 2RR, and that's why you hadn't responded after I posted the linked-to reply. And, I noticed that you are here after JJ . I don't understand how someone - an admin with as many edits as you, to the articles you edit, could possibly not know that it takes 4 reverts to violate 3RR. If you commented here to show that I'm in the wrong, you couldn't have picked a better COUNTER-example. Thanks! Are you going to admit your wrong, or continue to deny reality, Doug? Or must I admit and love the fact that 2+2=5? --] (]) 21:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | :::*Oh. My. God. Your accusation is BLATANTLY false, Doug, . You did abuse the template. I thought you finally realized that, indeed, I hadn't exceeded 2RR, and that's why you hadn't responded after I posted the linked-to reply. And, I noticed that you are here after JJ . I don't understand how someone - an admin with as many edits as you, to the articles you edit, could possibly not know that it takes 4 reverts to violate 3RR. If you commented here to show that I'm in the wrong, you couldn't have picked a better COUNTER-example. Thanks! Are you going to admit your wrong, or continue to deny reality, Doug? Or must I admit and love the fact that 2+2=5? --] (]) 21:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC) | ||
::::So let me get this straight. Your post to my talk page then included the statement " I didn't break 3RR, and I didn't break 2RR.".]You repeat this on your talk page.. Now you are admitting to 2RR? Which you did. I never suggested that you violated 3RR and I explained why I thought you'd hit 3RR in detail and enquired at the Vllage Pump (Technical) as to why your 3rd edit said "revert" in the automatic edit sujmmary (of course, if you'd made an edit summary yourself I wouldn't have warned you). Now you've been here longer than I am (although you have few edits), and you were quoting 3RR in 2006), and yet you clearly don't understand the use of the warning template. It's used when an editor reaches 3RR (or perhaps more if they haven't been warned) to inform them of the fact that another revert can get them blocked. It doesn't say that the editor has reach 4RR. The reason I didn't reply again was that it dealing with you is difficult and boring and I had better things to do than repeat myself again. It's been a long time since your were blocked indefinitely for failure to get a clue and creating a hostile editing environment but you really need to start AGFing and being more civil. ] (]) 07:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
=== Response by _ === | === Response by _ === |
Revision as of 07:16, 8 March 2013
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles, content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
- For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
- To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
- If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
- Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
- For administrative backlogs add
{{Admin backlog}}
to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. - Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
- Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
- If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use
{{RfC closure review}}
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~
to do so.
Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussionThis page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
Noticeboards | |
---|---|
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
General | |
Articles, content | |
Page handling | |
User conduct | |
Other | |
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38
as Misplaced Pages:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers |
---|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old
- Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion
- Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Misplaced Pages:Proposed mergers/Log
- Misplaced Pages:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive367#Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus
(Initiated 36 days ago on 13 December 2024) challenge of close at AN was archived nableezy - 05:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request
(Initiated 34 days ago on 15 December 2024) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- This could really use some attention—it's been over a month. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Beeblebrox. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 05:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments
(Initiated 103 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 459#RFC_Jerusalem_Post
(Initiated 82 days ago on 28 October 2024) Participation/discussion has mostly stopped & is unlikely to pick back up again. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 22:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- would like to see what close is. seems like it was option 1 in general, possibly 1/2 for IP area. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Genocide#RfC: History section, adding native American and Australian genocides as examples
(Initiated 73 days ago on 6 November 2024) RfC expired on 6 December 2024 . No new comments in over a week. Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Australia#RFC: Should the article state that Indigenous Australians were victims of genocide?
(Initiated 72 days ago on 8 November 2024), RFC expired weeks ago. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Israel#RfC
(Initiated 57 days ago on 22 November 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice. Can we please get an interdependent close. TarnishedPath 23:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: Ongoing discussion, please wait a week or two. Bogazicili (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Thomas Sewell (neo-Nazi)#RfC on the Inclusion of Guard Actions and Court Findings on Motivations
(Initiated 32 days ago on 17 December 2024) Legobot has removed the RFC notice and the last comment was a few days ago. Can we get an independent close please. TarnishedPath 22:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Estado Novo (Portugal)#RFC Should the Estado Novo be considered fascist?
(Initiated 11 days ago on 8 January 2025) RfC opened last month, and was re-opened last week, but hasn't received further discussion. Outcome clear and unlikely to change if it were to run the full 30 days. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Does this need a close? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would have just closed it myself, but I don't exactly feel comfortable doing so since I've responded and have a bias about how it should close. Not opposed to just letting it expire, though. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it should just be left to expire. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Closing the discussion. The outcome is obvious and you can let it lie unclosed.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think it should just be left to expire. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would have just closed it myself, but I don't exactly feel comfortable doing so since I've responded and have a bias about how it should close. Not opposed to just letting it expire, though. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 23:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not done for reasons given above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 04:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
V | Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 96 | 97 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 21 | 26 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 74 | 75 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 18#Category:Belarusian saints
(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Category:Misplaced Pages oversighters
(Initiated 30 days ago on 20 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 31#Category:Disambig-Class Star Trek pages
(Initiated 18 days ago on 31 December 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 16:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 1#Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios pages of NA-importance
(Initiated 18 days ago on 1 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Closed by editor Xplicit. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. 16:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6#Redundant WPANIMATION categories
(Initiated 12 days ago on 6 January 2025) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
Talk:Arab migrations to the Levant#Merger Proposal
(Initiated 116 days ago on 25 September 2024) Open for a while, requesting uninvolved closure. Andre🚐 22:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Winter fuel payment abolition backlash#Merge proposal
(Initiated 82 days ago on 29 October 2024) There are voices on both sides (ie it is not uncontroversial) so a non-involved editor is needed to evaluate consensus and close this. Thanks. PamD 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Israel–Hamas war#Survey
(Initiated 73 days ago on 7 November 2024) Looking for uninvolved close in CTOP please, only a few !votes in past month. I realise this doesn't require closing, but it is preferred in such case due to controversial nature of topic. CNC (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: I'm happy to perform the merge if required, as have summarised other sections of this article already with consensus. I realise it's usually expected to perform splits or merges when closing discussions, but in this case it wouldn't be needed. CNC (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:You Like It Darker#Proposed merge of Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker
(Initiated 22 days ago on 27 December 2024) Proposed merge discussion originally opened on 30 May 2024, closed on 27 October 2024, and reopened on 27 December 2024 following the closure being overturned at AN. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#Proposed merge of Stone in Focus into Selected Ambient Works Volume II
(Initiated 12 days ago on 6 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; proposal is blocking GA closure czar 11:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Donald Trump#Proposal to supersede consensus #50
(Initiated 8 days ago on 10 January 2025) Seeking uninvolved closure; its degenerated into silly sniping and has clearly run its course. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Topic (article) ban
Frank L. VanderSloot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Rhode Island Red (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- article protection log
- GeorgeLouis’s article edit history showing 280 edits or 21% of the total edits to the article
- Rhode Island Red’s article edit history showing 456 edits or 35% of the total edits to the article
- RFC about RIR closed with no consensus
- edit-warring report
- edit-warring report
- edit-warring report
- edit-warring report
- There are more edit-warring reports, but I got tired of listing them all.
- ANI discussion about VanderSloot
- ANI discussion about VanderSloot
- BLPN discussion
- BLPN discussion
- BLPN discussion
- There are more BLPN discussions, but I got tired of listing them all.
I propose a topic ban on Frank L. VanderSloot for User:GeorgeLouis and User:Rhode Island Red based on the history above, which may not be complete. I consider myself WP:INVOLVED because of my 5 edits to the article and a couple of edits to the talk page last year.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Proposing to ban me based on a few old retributive edit warring reports (baseless reports filed by George Louis that led to nothing) and a failed witch-hunt RfC (filed by George Louis that led to nothing) in the absence of a compelling reason or a recent incident? I have to question your motives for filing this. I suspect a pre-emptive measure aimed at derailing my request to go to ArbCom to resolve the POV pushing by editors who appear to have a vested interest in the subject matter. Looks like you're picking up the torch and launching yet another ill-conceived witch-hunt (of course I am in no way defending George Louis and won't obstruct your efforts to ban him). Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thus far, you're fortunate in that my proposal has apparently gained no traction, although your comments, in my view, only hurt you rather than help you. As for my motives (the usual refuge of editors who have no defense), I went out to dinner last night and I told my dinner companion about how much work it was to propose this ban (it took me a long time to create the list at the top). Understandably, they asked me, "Who is Frank VanderSloot?" After a fairly long pause, I responded, "I don't remember." As for ArbCom, I can't fathom what you expect to accomplish there, but it's hard to derail something of which I was wholly ignorant. Happy editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- What is unfortunate is that I have had to waste even a minute of my time responding to this (and reading about your dinner date last night). My previous comments highlighted the lack of substance to your inane proposal, which was missing one key element -- a reason. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you want to hear what we had for dinner? I thought the reasons was fairly obvious. The two of you are a disruption to the article and a continous drain on Misplaced Pages resources. I for one am sick of seeing this article and your (collectively) edits at all these different noticeboards. It's like deja vu times I don't know how many. You have the chutzpah to say that these events aren't "recent"?
- the article was locked as recently as February 13.
- your last edit to the article was a revert of GeorgeLouis on February 23 (preceded by edit-warring between the two of you).
- the last edit-warring report was on January 31 brought by you against GeorgeLouis (with this lovely opening salvo: "We’ve been having a chronic problem with GeorgeLouis over at the Frank Vandersloot page. Over the last couple of days (and over the past 8 months or so), the editor has made repeated attempts to blank reliably-sourced content from the article against consensus.").
- the last ANI discussion was in the middle of February.
- the last BLPN discussion was on January 21.
- --Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you want to hear what we had for dinner? I thought the reasons was fairly obvious. The two of you are a disruption to the article and a continous drain on Misplaced Pages resources. I for one am sick of seeing this article and your (collectively) edits at all these different noticeboards. It's like deja vu times I don't know how many. You have the chutzpah to say that these events aren't "recent"?
- What is unfortunate is that I have had to waste even a minute of my time responding to this (and reading about your dinner date last night). My previous comments highlighted the lack of substance to your inane proposal, which was missing one key element -- a reason. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- None of the evidence you presented falls on my shoulders nor does it remotely justify calling for a page ban against me. So what if I made an edit on Feb 13. It was a legitimate edit. The page wasn't locked because of me. The ANI was to resolve an editing dispute -- had nothing to do with my conduct. Yes, I filed an edit warring report against George and it was deemed that he was edit warring; how can you possibly try to twist that as evidence of misconduct on my part? That's ridiculous. Your blood lust is baseless. No admin would be foolish enough to not see through your paper thin premise. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thus far, you're fortunate in that my proposal has apparently gained no traction, although your comments, in my view, only hurt you rather than help you. As for my motives (the usual refuge of editors who have no defense), I went out to dinner last night and I told my dinner companion about how much work it was to propose this ban (it took me a long time to create the list at the top). Understandably, they asked me, "Who is Frank VanderSloot?" After a fairly long pause, I responded, "I don't remember." As for ArbCom, I can't fathom what you expect to accomplish there, but it's hard to derail something of which I was wholly ignorant. Happy editing.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Support for RIR, waiting for comments from George before !voting on him. I think RIR's comments here are representative of his inability to recognize the results of his actions. Arkon (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- So what you're saying is that because I challenged the charge and the evidence presented, that's evidence that the charge is legitimate? What kind of ridiculous circular logic is that? 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Support: I have felt on many occasions that this discussion is basically endless, and that any solution cannot be achieve without some kind of legitimate fork in the road we are all forced to follow. Ban everybody involved on all sides unless we can collaborate. I was deeply disappointed by the recent reversal of administrative decisiveness on this page purely because two editors on the losing side decided to make a fuss. This whole situation has made me lose faith in Misplaced Pages's ability to protect living people and deflect political bias. Makes me want to stick to artist only, and science pages and forget the entire side of Misplaced Pages dealing with businesses and businessmen. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jeeremy, you have been very much involved at the core of several of the editing disputes. This might seem like convenient opportunity to take out the opposition with an unjustified page ban, but it won't work. It's shameful that you would even try such an underhanded tactic. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm simply responding to the recommendation of another individual. If they felt I was a part of the problem too, I would go along with any request to pause, rewind, or move forward in a different method myself. I know that you have good intentions on Misplaced Pages and I do not doubt that at all, I in fact very much admire the pages you've chosen to take on, but I also think the intention of this proposal is constructive as well. I have tried to be constructive in all items I have posted regarding these situations. But how many hours of other people's time is this project going to continue to take? I think we can trust that the Misplaced Pages community at large is capable of handling this page effectively if we all left it alone.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Support for RIR. Opinion reserved on GeorgeLouis pending a response. I followed the last several ANI's revolving around article and decided against commenting. This is a ultimately necessary step to stop the endless unconstructive bickering at that article. Blackmane (talk) 15:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's silly. Bickering is not a basis for calling for a page ban. Nor is the so called "bickering" confined to me and George; you seem to be purposely ignoring the fact that multiple parties have been involved, and yet you are trying to make it seem as though it's all somehow my fault that multiple parties are in disagreement. I've been saying for quite some time that the article and the actions of various POV pushers should go before ArbCom for resolution. My impression is that there are some ardent advocates of Vandersloot and Melaleuca who don't want that to happen, for fear of that the decision would not rule in their favor. This is a silly witch-hunt; nothing more. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment.You got the wrong guy, officer, but thanks for posting this link to my edits. It shows clearly that I've made beaucoup recent edits on such controversial subjects as "Copy edit," "More copy edit," "Comma to set off appositive," "Impersonal, not personal pronoun," "Spell out approximate number," "Correct small number per MOS. Hyphens in 9-1/2 and in second-largest. Comma in compound sentence" and "Changing % to percent for concistency." Then there was the landmark "Correct capitalization," which amended the name of Vandersloot to the correct form VanderSloot (thirteen times!), which had been in the article — I don't know — maybe forever? We also have several instances of "Adding In Use Tag" and "Removing In Use Tag," not to mention "Link is now dead," "Adding a link that does not require payment," "Reverting self. Have to do more checking" and "Explaining what the Inc. 500 list is." Thanks again: It was fun going over my past edits in this one article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose RIR, leaning Support for GL; @GL, a couple of your "copyedits" were substantive, and a number of your substantive edits are wrong. A majority of your edits this year were removing material added by RIR or adding material removed by RIR, whether or not you were specifically reverting his edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, of course. I haven't recently looked at the stats, but with the number of edits RIR has made to that article, it would be difficult to make any edit that didn't effect his. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- What you fail to acknowledge (and I can't help but wonder why) is that as a result of my numerous edits, a complete article was written (i.e., you can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs). By comparison, George's overall contributions to the article have been negligible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Arthur's statement is quite factual from what I can tell, but was lacking context. I attempted to provide that. I honestly have no problem with an editor contributing 99% of an article. The problem is your inability to recognize when you mess up, and you go on the attack instead. Not sure I've seen you own up to one single thing, and there have been numerous editors point these things out. That's the problem as I see it. Without acknowledgement of these legitimate complaints, why would anyone think you won't continue on the same path? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- My issue is that his claim is just not true :) RIR reverted almost everybody's edits unless they were fully in line with his/her perspective on how things should be written, leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions, though even then the bulk of the information and sources were coming from others. Most other editors, including George, have not been willing to fight with RIR on how the text is written because the minor details of the writing is not important enough to break from Misplaced Pages's norms of civility and collaboration. Other editors gave in before RIR did, that's all. There was also a lot of other material RIR refused to allow, even if it were sourced, which RIR generally did so with incivility. Lastly, RIR tends to revert the items of others and claim the talk page should be used, but rarely proposes language him/herself on the talk page before adding it and then fights for it to remain. This allowed RIR to claim WP:OWN of the article, but does not mean everybody else's contributions were "negligible" (a rather uncivil term). Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jeremy, when you make such gobsmackingly indefensible accusations like "leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions", you reveal the futility of this ridiculous exercise. It's threads like these that are the true waste of resources. Stop the witch-hunt nonsense already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Civility RIR, civility. I am simply responding to your claim that George doesn't matter on this article, which he clearly does. Stating that you created the whole article is also incorrect, and I've demonstrated how it could be misconceived that your contributions were greater than they really have been.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- The words "ridiculous", "nonsense", and "witch-hunt" fall well within the boundaries of civility. I'm merely calling a spade a spade -- i.e., it's extremely disingenuous to point to my edit count as though it's evidence of malfeasance rather than productivity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Those aren't the words I'm talking about, obviously. And no one is calling your "edit count ... malfeasance". I'm talking specifically about you discounting the efforts of others, and blowing your own efforts out of proportion. That aside, I'm surprised that you insist that there is no hostility whatsoever to your words, perhaps you should recheck your phrasing before posting. Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The words "ridiculous", "nonsense", and "witch-hunt" fall well within the boundaries of civility. I'm merely calling a spade a spade -- i.e., it's extremely disingenuous to point to my edit count as though it's evidence of malfeasance rather than productivity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Civility RIR, civility. I am simply responding to your claim that George doesn't matter on this article, which he clearly does. Stating that you created the whole article is also incorrect, and I've demonstrated how it could be misconceived that your contributions were greater than they really have been.Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jeremy, when you make such gobsmackingly indefensible accusations like "leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions", you reveal the futility of this ridiculous exercise. It's threads like these that are the true waste of resources. Stop the witch-hunt nonsense already. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- My issue is that his claim is just not true :) RIR reverted almost everybody's edits unless they were fully in line with his/her perspective on how things should be written, leaving an article almost wholly based on his/her opinions, though even then the bulk of the information and sources were coming from others. Most other editors, including George, have not been willing to fight with RIR on how the text is written because the minor details of the writing is not important enough to break from Misplaced Pages's norms of civility and collaboration. Other editors gave in before RIR did, that's all. There was also a lot of other material RIR refused to allow, even if it were sourced, which RIR generally did so with incivility. Lastly, RIR tends to revert the items of others and claim the talk page should be used, but rarely proposes language him/herself on the talk page before adding it and then fights for it to remain. This allowed RIR to claim WP:OWN of the article, but does not mean everybody else's contributions were "negligible" (a rather uncivil term). Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Arthur's statement is quite factual from what I can tell, but was lacking context. I attempted to provide that. I honestly have no problem with an editor contributing 99% of an article. The problem is your inability to recognize when you mess up, and you go on the attack instead. Not sure I've seen you own up to one single thing, and there have been numerous editors point these things out. That's the problem as I see it. Without acknowledgement of these legitimate complaints, why would anyone think you won't continue on the same path? Arkon (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- What you fail to acknowledge (and I can't help but wonder why) is that as a result of my numerous edits, a complete article was written (i.e., you can't make an omelet without cracking some eggs). By comparison, George's overall contributions to the article have been negligible. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, of course. I haven't recently looked at the stats, but with the number of edits RIR has made to that article, it would be difficult to make any edit that didn't effect his. Arkon (talk) 23:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to make light of this WP:ANI because I know how annoying it can be when confronted by what seems to be endless dispute in WP articles. Nevertheless, I'd like to point out that I have been active in developing new Talk Page sections when requested, by RIR or by other editors, all with an eye to settling disagreements. Granted, because these are Talk Page changes, they may not have been included in the very comprehensive list of diffs submitted above by User:Bbb23.
- Wife contribution: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=528829649&oldid=528825896
- Add a subheader for ease of comprehension and editing; http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=527573603&oldid=527573383
- Adding a marketing subsection entitled "Inverted pyramid vs. chronological
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=525083077&oldid=525079257
- Adding a new section on the Direct Selling Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=524652084&oldid=524647718
- Making subheaders for ease of editing and of comprehension. Hiding some off-topic comments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161
- Idaho ballot initiatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537055852&oldid=537046161
- New subheaders in Talk section, "Consensus" for ease of comprehension
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=537308982&oldid=537307545
- Making additional subheaders so each editor would have his or her own subsection instead of having to share:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AFrank_L._VanderSloot&diff=536849148&oldid=536836231
- To get this discussion off dead center, I don't mind taking a four-week break from editing (I did this for some two weeks last December), so that others could improve the article. but I think the project would benefit from whatever I post on the Talk Page, even if it's just advice about correcting a spelling error.GeorgeLouis (talk)
- Oppose topic-banning either RIR or GL. Having watched the VanderSloot shenanigans for some time now, it seems to me that RIR is the most valuable contributor in terms of trying to improve the encyclopedic value of the article, and GL is prominent among users whose resistance to policy-compliant, reliably sourced content makes it hard not to wonder about agendas and motivations. I note, and agree with, Arthur Rubin's comments on GL's edits. Yet I don't think topic-banning GL would be helpful without also including the others who together form, whether by accident or design, a united front against content they apparently don't like. Might there be a mature, neutral, policy-savvy admin who has the balls to mediate the content disputes on the talk page? Writegeist (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- Writegeist has an excellent point! If we can get that kind of administrative support on the page ... can we? Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- I get the sense that a topic ban per se isn't going to get sufficient support here to be adopted. To plant a seed for future consideration: what might help avoid disruption here is to impose a restriction on use of noticeboards w/rt this article: a prohibition on initiating a discussion at any noticeboard, and a prohibition on contributing more than twice (with each contribution <75 words) at any single discussion initiated by anyone else. Tweak the details, whatever, but the point is to restrict the drama to the article talk page and spare the larger number of people who participate at the noticeboards. Again, for future consideration perhaps -- and since I've been involved at the article myself, feel free to discount the entire suggestion on that basis alone if you like. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- I never discount anything you say. Although an interesting suggestion, I fear it would be almost impossible to implement. It would be almost like saying anyone can do whatever they please on the article, and no one can seek sanctions or even input about editors' actions. I suppose you could craft something that might be doable, but it would no doubt have to be an extended use of wikilegalese.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I meant it to apply only to the two editors in question here. The point is, there's enough attention on the page that if a genuine problem arises with one or the other someone is likely to raise it at a noticeboard -- but we wouldn't have to worry about frivolous or retaliatory reports. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support ban on all "health products" related pages Per the first RfC/U on RIR, that appears to be where the primary problem is. GL is not involved in that larger area, but RIR appears to be a strong SPA in that area. Collect (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Contributors to discussions of this sort really ought to indicate whether they have been involved at the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- My last edit was removal of a blatant copyvio -- which RIR then reverted. . AFAICT, using the exact words of a source without using quotes is a copyvio. And your point is? Ah -- that you also edit the article? I would point out that I noted the first RfC/U in which I made zero edits about articles in which I made zero edits. The fact is that RIR appears to have a strong interest in the topic I mentioned in which I have zero interest. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Contributors to discussions of this sort really ought to indicate whether they have been involved at the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- In regard to Collect's statement above, RIR has indeed been quite active in other WP articles about companies that sell health-related products.
- One of them was Juice Plus (in 2009). See these interchanges at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive204#Block_review_on_User:Jackie_JP and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive575#Vicious_Personal_Attacks_by_Dubbawubba_.28moved_from_WQA.29. A check user request was denied in a matter involving this article, at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Rhode_Island_Red. A WP:Civility accusation was handled at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Rhode_Island_Red.
- RIR was also involved in editing USANA Health Sciences ("a Utah-based multilevel marketing company that produces various nutritional and skin-care products") and was involved in a WP:3RR complaint at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive164#User:Rhode_Island_Red_reported_by_User:Leef5_.28Result:_article_protected.29. Other activity is here and here, where on 8 September 2012 he insisted on adding the phrase multi-level marketing to the article in much the same way he has in the VanderSloot piece. He made a similar change to that article as recently as 8 February 2013, with the Edit Summary "It is an MLM and the primary term is MLM, not 'network marketing.' "
- Rhode Island Red also submitted a fulsome notice regarding Amway at the Reliable Sources noticeboard (Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Improper_synthesis_and_paraphasring_of_sources_on_Amway) on 14 May 2011.
- I agree in advance that RIR may not have been alone in his wrongdoings anent those articles, but am submitting these links to support Collect's statement that RIR has had a history of heavy editing of health-related products. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Re. Collect's 'Per the first RfC/U on RIR, that appears to be where the primary problem is.' Hm. That RfC/U was way back in 2007: Comprehensive, detailed defence presented by RIR; numerous comments in his support; specious SPA allegation totally discredited; result: 'User agreed to take a break from editing the article' following another user's suggestion that he 'take a break from this article. Not as punishment, and not as an admission or acknowledgement that she has done anything wrong at all, but simply to gain experience in other articles and to take a break from this one.' (Emphasis added.) RIR then took a week's break. A six year-old RfC which ended without any critical result, action, punishment or requirement to acknowledge any wrongdoing at all is no more relevant here than Collect's own four year-old RfC/U alleging 'Collect is a tendentious editor with a long history of edit warring and gaming the system/using Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith.' (Result: 'User warned and restricted.')
- On the face of it, RIR's Nov 2012 RfC/U might have more relevance, for being as recent as three months ago: Allegations: 'Civility , misuse of edit summaries , soapboxing ], biting the newcomers . Result: 'No consensus, closing admin suggested taking larger issues to arbitration,' And wait a minute, I'm trying to remember who were the certifiers who staged this farce . . . ah yes! None other than GeorgeLouis and Collect (the latter providing copious hot air and absolutely no diffs as 'evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute'). Their efforts to blame, shame and drive off RIR, viewed in the wider context of the concerted, long-running and futile campaign they have conducted against RIR across the VS talk pages and the drama boards, may be taken with a rather large pinch of salt. Writegeist (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Deal with what I write - now with what you wish. An RfC/U which was orchestrated by a banned user and votestacked with 14 people (including sock masters) from four years ago about an editor who is not being discussed here, is not of much import here. Is there any actual reason why you choose this moment to attack me personally?
- shows your exceedingly apparent anti-Mormon bigotry from the start.
- Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements.
- As does
- Adding comments and edit summaries that stir shit-storms in teacups is routine for users whose history shows a marked tendency to misrepresent others' comments. As a strategy to discredit others it is doomed to failure (yet its practitioners endlessly repeat the same strategy in the hope of a different outcome). Rather, it tends to discredit the shit stirrer. For example: suppose user A comments at the talk page of a BLP on Dick Head, a notable member of the polygamous Church of MoreYoni, that Dick, his current wife and his ex-wife all appear to reside at the same address; and suppose user A comments further that "MoreYonis have such cosy domestic arrangements." User B, who cannot see a wikiteacup without trying to stir a storm in it, deletes the comments and harrumphs about "blatant religious bigotry" in the edit summary. It's clearly a fatuous accusation, so why make it? Groundless accusations are often projections. If other users now check B's edit history and see that his contributions routinely convey an "obstinate or intolerant devotion to his own opinions and prejudices"--the very stuff of bigotry--the full extent of the irony will be evident to all.
- Is quite sufficient evidence of one editor's animus to a specific religion, denigration of those who are members of that religion (unless one can not userstand what MoreYoni is, of course), and then pops here -- discussing an article ... about a member of that religion. And attacking everyone in his path <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Collect, your taking blind pot shots, that have nothing to do with this thread, at Writegeist is further evidence of the inanity of this ban request thread. It's not going to go anywhere and it's not going to resolve any conflicts. I have on numerous occasions proposed ArbCom as the best and most resolute way to put and end to the animosity once and for all. If the disputants are truly acting in good faith, they should all relish the opportunity to present their case before ArbCom. However, I get the impression that you and George are resisting this option because you are assuming (correctly I would guess) that you wouldn't fare well, and that makes whining on the drama-boards a much more appealing option. I implore you, if you are serious about achieving resolution, accept this invitation to take the matter to ArbCom. If you're not, then piping down would be the appropriate course of action. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- The MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist he comment Writegeist made was his edit at the VanderSloot article talk page - I fail to see how closer it could be to being relevant to a discussion about the VanderSloot article! Yet you think an edit at VanderSloot which is clearly bigotted has "nothing to do" with VanderSloot? How quaint! My edit here, moreover, was to note that you seem preoccupied with healt foods - which I would think is obvious from simply looking at your small number of articles unrelated thereto. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not content with misrepresentation, 'one editor' has progressed to a rank lie. I challenge 'one editor' to provide a diff of the alleged 'MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist" comment at the VanderSloot article talk page. I have made absolutely no comment there containing any, let alone all, of those words. Put up or shut up. Writegeist (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- The MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist he comment Writegeist made was his edit at the VanderSloot article talk page - I fail to see how closer it could be to being relevant to a discussion about the VanderSloot article! Yet you think an edit at VanderSloot which is clearly bigotted has "nothing to do" with VanderSloot? How quaint! My edit here, moreover, was to note that you seem preoccupied with healt foods - which I would think is obvious from simply looking at your small number of articles unrelated thereto. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Collect, your taking blind pot shots, that have nothing to do with this thread, at Writegeist is further evidence of the inanity of this ban request thread. It's not going to go anywhere and it's not going to resolve any conflicts. I have on numerous occasions proposed ArbCom as the best and most resolute way to put and end to the animosity once and for all. If the disputants are truly acting in good faith, they should all relish the opportunity to present their case before ArbCom. However, I get the impression that you and George are resisting this option because you are assuming (correctly I would guess) that you wouldn't fare well, and that makes whining on the drama-boards a much more appealing option. I implore you, if you are serious about achieving resolution, accept this invitation to take the matter to ArbCom. If you're not, then piping down would be the appropriate course of action. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Re. 'One editor' 's comments (lulz!). His reply to me has expelled enough hot air for a balloon ride over the Himalayas. One day 'one editor' might try stirring tea in a teacup for a change. (The choices are practically endless. Relaxing chamomile, for example, is thought to combat overstimulation, spasms and flatulence.) I note 'one editor' apoplectically objects to my mention of his RfC/U (which led to findings of EW, TE, DE, 'answering worries about his behaviour by dwelling on the behaviour of other editors', legal threats, wikilawyering, abusing sourcing policy and unevenly applying it to his own outlook and PoV, and making accusations without taking steps to find proof; which in turn led to his being warned and restricted), but conveniently misrepresents my comments by omission of their key point—namely the fact that, as I made crystal clear, I raised his RfC only to say that, despite it being more recent and having a much more serious outcome, it's as irrelevant here as his mention of RIR's, which led to neither warnings nor restrictions. 'One editor' objects that his RfC/U was not being discussed here until my comments alluded to it. Yet I cannot find any objection from him (did I miss it?) to his own comments when he resurrects RIR's much more ancient RfC, an episode which, until "one editor" mentioned it, was also not being discussed—for the simple reason that it, too, is irrelevant here.
- The sad fact is that 'one editor' and GeorgeLouis et al. repeatedly pile on at the talk pages and drama boards in their vexatious attempts—always unsuccessful—to shut down RIR. It's time they stopped. RIR's resilience to the bullying thus far is highly commendable. A more timid soul would have been run off by now. His suggestion to put up at Arbcom or abandon the campaign altogether seems well-intended and worthy of consideration. Writegeist (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- 'Self-evident bigotry is hard to excuse. And calling a person a Dick Head, a MoreYon and a polygamist clearly passes the smell test. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- MoreYoni. Not MoreYon (which has an altogether different sound and a derogatory implication—as of course 'one editor' knows, and which is why he wrote it.) Oh well, MoreMisrepresentation from 'one editor' is no surprise. It's a widely remarked stock-in-trade of 'one editor's' tendentious style of debate. Smell test? It stinks. Writegeist (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- And it remains a bigotted remark of the first water. And as I quoted your precise post above, I think you are now on fairly thin ice. (see Moroni]) Collect (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your idea of precision is, shall we say, idiosyncratic. Persisting in a lie does not make it the truth, and it does nothing to serve your cause here. Writegeist (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I gave your exact talk page post with the exact diff where you made the exact post: Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements. I take it you find making fun of religions and asserting that the "domestic arrangements" are "cosy" is somehow not as bigotted as others may see it? Collect (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- You have commented here that I made an edit using the words "MoreYon Dick Head Polygamist" at the VanderSloot talk page. This is one lie. Another lie is that you have given a supporting diff. How many more toi come, Collect? Writegeist (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- I gave your exact talk page post with the exact diff where you made the exact post: Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements. I take it you find making fun of religions and asserting that the "domestic arrangements" are "cosy" is somehow not as bigotted as others may see it? Collect (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Your idea of precision is, shall we say, idiosyncratic. Persisting in a lie does not make it the truth, and it does nothing to serve your cause here. Writegeist (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- And it remains a bigotted remark of the first water. And as I quoted your precise post above, I think you are now on fairly thin ice. (see Moroni]) Collect (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- MoreYoni. Not MoreYon (which has an altogether different sound and a derogatory implication—as of course 'one editor' knows, and which is why he wrote it.) Oh well, MoreMisrepresentation from 'one editor' is no surprise. It's a widely remarked stock-in-trade of 'one editor's' tendentious style of debate. Smell test? It stinks. Writegeist (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- 'Self-evident bigotry is hard to excuse. And calling a person a Dick Head, a MoreYon and a polygamist clearly passes the smell test. Collect (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
|}
- Yes, for both. Clearly the article is not moving forward; there is way too much history and disruption here caused and furthered by these two editors. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly??? That's simply false. The article has in fact moved forward but not without considerable pain. What exactly does "too much history" mean. Seriously, at this point in the game we all need to be specific and not toss out vague straw man arguments. It's true that there has been "disruption" but it's quite inappropriate to pretend that I am somehow the root cause of the disruption; the assertion simply ignores the facts (and that multiple editors have been involved on both sides of the conflicts). I'll point out, once again, that I have repeatedly requested that we take this matter to ArbCom for greater scrutiny and a definitive resolution but the "other side" has cowered from the invitation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point, but I don't remember ever seeing someone balk at the prospect myself reviewing the talk pages. Do you have specific links to where editors have specifically said that was a bad idea, other than Lord Roem who warned against its possible outcomes on all sides? Beyond this I can't think of a specific example where anyone has "cowered" (kind of a strong word), I just think most people haven't had enough interest in the idea to discuss it. I could be wrong of course, but do you have examples? Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- As you are already well aware, given that you have long followed the discussion threads, I have on at least half a dozen occasions strongly advised taking this matter to ArbCom. None of the combatants (i.e. the Vandersloot/Melaleuca advocates) on the article have even acknowledged let alone accepted the offer. Hence, I don't need to present any additional evidence that "your side" has cowered form the opportunity to resolve this through ArbCom. Instead, the preferred tactic has been to make sneaky attempts to work around that and hamstring me, such as filing baseless 3RR complaints, a pointless RfC (which you were involved in), and now this current witch-hunt. I think it's pretty obvious why these Melaleuca/Vandersloot advocates would try to roll the dice on a last ditch ploy like this one instead of opting for a process that would bring scrutiny to all involved parties, themselves included, and a long-lasting reasoned conclusion. So once again, I repeat the challenge. If there are any involved editors that still have a problem with the article's content, or user conduct, then let's go to ArbCom for final resolution. Show good faith and sincerity by accepting the offer. If they they aren't willing to do it, then there is no excuse for a resumption of edit warring and frivolous drama-board complaints. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I don't have a "side" :) I'm certain that you don't either as Misplaced Pages is about a neutral point of view, which should be somewhat universal, no? Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- That comment was so light on substance I don't even know how to respond other than to point out that: (a) it could easily be argued, based on your past contribution with respect to Vandersloot, that you do have a side, and quite a consistent one; (b) the point of my comment was that ArbCom is the logical place to achieve a fair resolution and yet no one on your "side" has shown any interest whatsoever in pursuing this option, favoring instead malicious drama board complaints and ad hominem attacks that get us nowhere. Clear now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I still don't have a side :) As far as I'm concerned, the civility issue is the only thing I feel strongly about. The rest of the issues appear to be falling by the wayside with our continued efforts, although more slowly due to said lack of civility and cooperation--something that threatens all progress. So ending incivility or eliminating those who cannot bring themselves to be civil would be immensely helpful here, thus my initial comment. Again, one should not have a non-objective point of view on Misplaced Pages. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did you not notice that this thread has nothing to do with civility issues? GeorgeLouis tried that tack already, launching a witch-hunt RfC that you participated in. The conclusion was that civility wasn't the issue but rather content disputes and POV pushing; and ArbCom was recommended. So what you're pining for is to take a step backwards -- clearly not constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- So you find civility unimportant? I'm not sure what you are saying here. Arbcom was not recommended by anyone but you at the RFC, and POV pushing was not concluded whatsoever. The conclusion of the RFC was that you had tried to become more civil, but that does not mean future incivility will be ignored. My opinion is that incivility is the root of the problems on the Vandersloot page, including a lack of respect for the opinions of others. I also see it as the root of the recommendation being discussed here. Jeremy112233 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Did you not notice that this thread has nothing to do with civility issues? GeorgeLouis tried that tack already, launching a witch-hunt RfC that you participated in. The conclusion was that civility wasn't the issue but rather content disputes and POV pushing; and ArbCom was recommended. So what you're pining for is to take a step backwards -- clearly not constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I still don't have a side :) As far as I'm concerned, the civility issue is the only thing I feel strongly about. The rest of the issues appear to be falling by the wayside with our continued efforts, although more slowly due to said lack of civility and cooperation--something that threatens all progress. So ending incivility or eliminating those who cannot bring themselves to be civil would be immensely helpful here, thus my initial comment. Again, one should not have a non-objective point of view on Misplaced Pages. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- That comment was so light on substance I don't even know how to respond other than to point out that: (a) it could easily be argued, based on your past contribution with respect to Vandersloot, that you do have a side, and quite a consistent one; (b) the point of my comment was that ArbCom is the logical place to achieve a fair resolution and yet no one on your "side" has shown any interest whatsoever in pursuing this option, favoring instead malicious drama board complaints and ad hominem attacks that get us nowhere. Clear now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I don't have a "side" :) I'm certain that you don't either as Misplaced Pages is about a neutral point of view, which should be somewhat universal, no? Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- As you are already well aware, given that you have long followed the discussion threads, I have on at least half a dozen occasions strongly advised taking this matter to ArbCom. None of the combatants (i.e. the Vandersloot/Melaleuca advocates) on the article have even acknowledged let alone accepted the offer. Hence, I don't need to present any additional evidence that "your side" has cowered form the opportunity to resolve this through ArbCom. Instead, the preferred tactic has been to make sneaky attempts to work around that and hamstring me, such as filing baseless 3RR complaints, a pointless RfC (which you were involved in), and now this current witch-hunt. I think it's pretty obvious why these Melaleuca/Vandersloot advocates would try to roll the dice on a last ditch ploy like this one instead of opting for a process that would bring scrutiny to all involved parties, themselves included, and a long-lasting reasoned conclusion. So once again, I repeat the challenge. If there are any involved editors that still have a problem with the article's content, or user conduct, then let's go to ArbCom for final resolution. Show good faith and sincerity by accepting the offer. If they they aren't willing to do it, then there is no excuse for a resumption of edit warring and frivolous drama-board complaints. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
- @Rhode Island Red. Do you need support from other parties to file a request for arbitration? I am not very familiar with the arbitration process, but my impression is that people definitely get dragged to the ArbCom against their will. Also, as I get the impression that your primary goal of an ArbCom process, is to get an exposé of some COI issues you suspect are present; have you considered bringing it to the COI noticeboard first? - As for me, I wouldn´t necessarily oppose an ArbCom process, due in large part to the toxic climate between users that I find that the VdS and maybe related articles generate. (As on display in many of the comments above). Regardless of what might be true about the COI issues, I find this super-aggressive and contemptuous atmosphere to be a problem in itself, detrimental to the cause of Misplaced Pages, which is building an encyclopedia in a constructive cooperation. An important part of an ArbCom case, imo, would thus be to restore some basic civility and a minimum of respect between involved users. (I partly tend to think of Misplaced Pages as a workplace, and if Misplaced Pages were a real-life workplace in Norway, I believe the labour inspection authorities would have demanded that something was done to better the workplace environment.) With regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Heh, although I can't speak with any authority for all countries, I venture a guess that if Misplaced Pages were a "real-life workplace" in almost any country, a good deal of what goes on here wouldn't be tolerated. But that's apparently the price you pay for a virtual
anarchisticdemocratic bureaucracy.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
- Heh, although I can't speak with any authority for all countries, I venture a guess that if Misplaced Pages were a "real-life workplace" in almost any country, a good deal of what goes on here wouldn't be tolerated. But that's apparently the price you pay for a virtual
- That's an interesting point, but I don't remember ever seeing someone balk at the prospect myself reviewing the talk pages. Do you have specific links to where editors have specifically said that was a bad idea, other than Lord Roem who warned against its possible outcomes on all sides? Beyond this I can't think of a specific example where anyone has "cowered" (kind of a strong word), I just think most people haven't had enough interest in the idea to discuss it. I could be wrong of course, but do you have examples? Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly??? That's simply false. The article has in fact moved forward but not without considerable pain. What exactly does "too much history" mean. Seriously, at this point in the game we all need to be specific and not toss out vague straw man arguments. It's true that there has been "disruption" but it's quite inappropriate to pretend that I am somehow the root cause of the disruption; the assertion simply ignores the facts (and that multiple editors have been involved on both sides of the conflicts). I'll point out, once again, that I have repeatedly requested that we take this matter to ArbCom for greater scrutiny and a definitive resolution but the "other side" has cowered from the invitation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
There are a multitude of issues to be addressed; e.g. POV pushing, tendentious/disruptive editing, sock puppetry, harassment, COI, collusion/tag-teaming, wasting resources/endless debate, etc. No one should have to be dragged to ArbCom at this point; they should go willingly because it's the fairest way to achieve resolution. Those who have issues of any kind can air them before ArbCom secure in the knowledge that the case will be reviewed by the most experienced and impartial WP admins available, free from the contaminating influence of the rabble. It's the logical place to resolve the issues because the drama-boards have, for the most part, magnified the problems. I greatly resent the shifty efforts of a few POV pushers to hamstring me through these relentless backhanded assaults. These actions do not in any way resemble a good faith effort to achieve resolution and harmony; it's simply a case of trying to take out a productive editor who they don't like because their POV pushing is being met with resistance (and not just by me alone but by numerous editors). So there you have it. The invitation still stands, but I doubt know that any of the involved parties will accept it because they are banking on this ad hominem attack to do the trick; knowing full well that they wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance of prevailing in an ArbCom case and that they would then be out of rope. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support an indefinite page ban for User:GeorgeLouis and User:Rhode Island Red from the Frank L. VanderSloot article and Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot talkpage. Conduct by both is poor enough on that article and talk, but I don't currently see any need for a broader topic ban. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ohhh I see. So even though this complaint is devoid of evidence, and despite the fact that my conduct on the Vandersloot article has been carefully and routinely scrutinized (due to GeorgeLouis's near weekly complaints on the drama-boards) and I have never been found to be guilty of misconduct, you're suggesting that the outcomes and lack of evidence should be ignored and that I should be banned just for the hell of it? Since when does vigilante justice trump due process on Misplaced Pages? I'm suggesting that this case go to ArbCom so that a fair decision can be reached without witch-hunters contaminating the process. There's no reason to demand blood and circumvent that the resolution process. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are you going to lecture about civility next. Not exactly a shining role model are you? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just a reminder to all editors about Wikihounding. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- An off topic non sequitur. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe he was talking about editors that insist on responding to every single comment on a page, with the intention of either intimidating them or being dismissive of their opinions. Quite appropriate in this case. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Jeremy112233. More to the point: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe he was talking about editors that insist on responding to every single comment on a page, with the intention of either intimidating them or being dismissive of their opinions. Quite appropriate in this case. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- An off topic non sequitur. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just a reminder to all editors about Wikihounding. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are you going to lecture about civility next. Not exactly a shining role model are you? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ohhh I see. So even though this complaint is devoid of evidence, and despite the fact that my conduct on the Vandersloot article has been carefully and routinely scrutinized (due to GeorgeLouis's near weekly complaints on the drama-boards) and I have never been found to be guilty of misconduct, you're suggesting that the outcomes and lack of evidence should be ignored and that I should be banned just for the hell of it? Since when does vigilante justice trump due process on Misplaced Pages? I'm suggesting that this case go to ArbCom so that a fair decision can be reached without witch-hunters contaminating the process. There's no reason to demand blood and circumvent that the resolution process. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Could an uninvolved admin close this in whatever way they deem appropriate? Frankly, no matter what the outcome, I prefer a closure to automatic archiving.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
A request for a block review that has been unanswered for quite some time
The user has requested a review of their block User_talk:3abos#Blocked that has gone almost a day without a response. Can someone take a look at it? Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, that was a long time. I've unblocked, since as far as I can tell this user's problems (aside from a misunderstanding about the username itself) have all been on LGBT-related topics, and the user's essentially pledged a self-imposed topic ban. I'm not particularly convinced by statements from others such as "The suggestion that there is no neutrality, only a dictatorship of the majority, is battleground stuff" — Misplaced Pages is deeply non-neutral in multiple places, and that's why I am careful to stay in uncontentious areas like historic preservation. Of course, I've warned him to be extremely careful to stay away from the topic, since I don't believe he'll be able to avoid controversy when editing there, but I don't see comparable problems arising as long as he's working elsewhere. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hang on a sec ... I declined an unblock at 23:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC), and he filed a new one at 3abos (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC) ... how is that "a long time", and what changed in his request between my decline and his new request? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I sort of remember this guy. Judging by his edit history, he was here principally to promote a homophobic point of view, and rather incompetently too. No way I'd have unblocked somebody with this track record under almost any circumstance. Even if he doesn't touch sex-related stuff, his edits reflect a general lack of competence and ability to understand our principle of neutrality that makes me believe that most of his edits are not likely to improve Misplaced Pages. (Just compare only his most recent edit to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Images#Forced image size.) Sandstein 21:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
General canvassing question.
Reading WP:DDE and WP:BAN (which says, "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) ") leads me to post here. What if I have noticed that over the long term, an unusually large fraction of one users edits appear to be disruptive, tendentious, hostile, and/or edit warring, though blatant 3RR violation is avoided, and I see imposition of 1RR or full block would be a solution, as many users have left the user constructive feedback, but it's clear from the responses that it falls on deaf ears, as it is often removed or hatted? What if he is arguing with many editors in ways that frequently lead to well-founded accusations of policy violations, and the rule, rather than the exception, is that the user refuses to get the point - whether it is a clear explanation of how policy applies or does not apply to a particular edit or series of edits? If I posted the offending user's name and request action, them I'm wondering if it'd be appropriate to notify users that have offered the user constructive feedback, or that I see as recent victims of the editor, or if that counts as a violation of the ] guideline. I would think that sending a neutral notice to the last n posters to the users talk page would be appropriate, and 'improve the quality of the discussion' by but thought I'd ask here first. Of course, I'd notify the editor, provide diffs, etc. Or perhaps it would be best just post here or to AN/I, and hope the user didn't do his own stealth canvassing, and trust that the users edits would likely be enough to bury him. --Elvey (talk) 01:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Its a tricky issue. I would say that such notifications would count as canvassing, because no matter how neutral your notices are, they would be going to a non-neutral group of recipients. But, certain other rules can trump WP:CANVASS. For instance, if you posted a thread about them here, and mentioned their interactions with other editors, you would be obliged to provide notices. Likewise, anyone watching their talk page, likely including editors they have had past negative interactions with, will likely see and investigate your notification of taking them to what ever venue you end up taking them to. AN and AN/I are also active enough venues that it would be hard to canvass enough people to matter without red flags going up. Monty845 01:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Elvey appears to have taken your comment as approval to assemble a lynch mob, in the sense that he has notified five other editors who might be seen as anatagonistic to me in a complaint he has filed (below). (And in two cases forgot to sign his notice.) Only one of those editors matches someone that has "offered the user constructive feedback" (though on a different matter), and only one other is involved in the matters he complains of. The others have had no involvment in the matters complained of (see Talk:Earthquake prediction), and appear to have been included only on the basis of partisanship. In fact Elvey's question is not truly general, and certainly not neutral, but was asked in connection with a specific issue, with an ulterior purpose. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- are you only going to poke the other guy in thr eye, or do you plan to respond to the substance of his complaint in the other thread, about your own choices?NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Elvey appears to have taken your comment as approval to assemble a lynch mob, in the sense that he has notified five other editors who might be seen as anatagonistic to me in a complaint he has filed (below). (And in two cases forgot to sign his notice.) Only one of those editors matches someone that has "offered the user constructive feedback" (though on a different matter), and only one other is involved in the matters he complains of. The others have had no involvment in the matters complained of (see Talk:Earthquake prediction), and appear to have been included only on the basis of partisanship. In fact Elvey's question is not truly general, and certainly not neutral, but was asked in connection with a specific issue, with an ulterior purpose. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Admins who started as vandals
I recall from several years ago a particular admin who was very forth coming about his beginning on Misplaced Pages as a vandal. He had posted a piece about his conversion, that still impacts my decisions today. I can't recall the name, nor do I seem to have made note of the piece. The essay The motivation of a vandal mentions the propensity of conversion but lacks references to specific persons. While it would not be my intent to point fingers, the particular person I am thinking of was not shy about sharing. If they would consent to being used as an example on the essay, and possibly reminding me where they posted the piece so I could reference it in the future that would be great. Jeepday (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you're thinking of Rootology, but I don't think he is currently active (although I haven't checked recently); at least under that particular account. — Ched : ? 18:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- update: Now a redirect to User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Wikipedia is broken and failing — Ched : ? 18:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, not sure if it was them or someone else, not finding the piece I remember, thanks for responding. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- update: Now a redirect to User:GoneAwayNowAndRetired/Wikipedia is broken and failing — Ched : ? 18:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
RFC closure
Resolved--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Could an admin close my RFC at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- I seem to have define the wrong scope of the issue and posted it at the wrong page. I would like to withdraw my RFC nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Hijiri88 hounded off Misplaced Pages
Yesterday, Hijiri88, formerly Elvenscout742, announced he was leaving Misplaced Pages after being told by his employers he could no longer edit during breaks from work. The timing is distressing, as some time ago, now banned editor JoshuSasori threatened Hijiri about editing Misplaced Pages at work; Joshu was permanently blocked for this, but continues to disrupt Misplaced Pages with sockpuppets. I post this here to let other admins know what we're dealing with as we continue to handle JoshuSasori.--Cúchullain /c 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Good heavens... This doesn't look good at all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- See also this, above, and note that Hijiri (Saint?) would be perfectly free to continue editing from home (as in the past) if his roommate would let him. Also note that he claims that he was "hounded constantly by JoshuSasori and Tristan noir" (he apparently earned an interaction ban with the latter), but maybe Tristan feels that he/she is one of those hounded off Misplaced Pages. To quote Tristan: "I truly feel that I’ve done nothing inappropriate here. I furthermore pointed out in this edit to Drmies that Elvenscout742, after Drmies’ earlier warning, had subsequently violated the interaction terms by following me to five separate articles that he had never shown prior interest in editing. For Elvenscout742’s consistent pattern of violation, he received a 24 hour editing ban—the same ban I’m being placed under for one misunderstanding. Therefore, I respectfully request that this editing ban be reversed". LittleBen (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- LBW, this is not an appropriate thread in which to continue your own low-level harassment of Hijiri88. Beware the boomerang... Yunshui 雲水 10:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Stating the other side of the story in a neutral way is surely not low-level harassment. Did you see this, this, or this? LittleBen (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The other side of the story has been stated, repeatedly, in appropriate venues. Posting out-of-context quotes here in a thinly-veiled attempt to recast Hijiri88 as the villain of the piece looks a lot like harassment to me, especially considering the history between yourself and this user. Yunshui 雲水 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The other side of the story that had not been stated repeatedly is that he is perfectly free to continue editing from home—it's the other editors, who are topic banned or banned, who are not. He is free to state his side of the story, whereas they are not.
- Considering that he stalked me for two or three days, making snide comments, suggests that the young lady's(?) comments about stalking are not unfair. AN is not the place for witch hunts or vindictiveness. If he wants a tombstone trophy, let him ask for one himself. LittleBen (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- AN is not the place for witch hunts or vindictiveness And yet here you are, trying to stick the knife in. Look to yourself sometime. And for heaven's sake, grow up. --Calton | Talk 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's pretty gross to start a new discussion about the subject right after the previous one was closed by an Administrator. LittleBen (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- The other side of the story has been stated, repeatedly, in appropriate venues. Posting out-of-context quotes here in a thinly-veiled attempt to recast Hijiri88 as the villain of the piece looks a lot like harassment to me, especially considering the history between yourself and this user. Yunshui 雲水 11:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- LBW, this is not an appropriate thread in which to continue your own low-level harassment of Hijiri88. Beware the boomerang... Yunshui 雲水 10:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Who unhatted the closed discussion? I know I cocked up by posting something in it (that was a pure mistake), but... Lukeno94 (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.0.96.220 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- What's "gross" here is LittleBen's attempt to blame the victim for being harassed at work, and then reopening that unproductive tangent to gravedance some more. And people wonder why it's so hard to retain good editors these days.--Cúchullain /c 17:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll repeat what I said before (albeit in a stupid place): I don't understand HOW anyone can support JoshuSasori's actions at all. Constant wiki-hounding across multiple accounts and IPs is disgusting behaviour. As to the Tristan noir dispute, well, I'm not party to that one, so I can't comment. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- For the record: Tristan noir was a COI/SPA who only created a Misplaced Pages account to promote his own book. I was far too nice to him (AFG and all) for the first TWO MONTHS of our dispute, leading him to harass me across about a dozen articles. He has hardly made a single significant contribution to Misplaced Pages and mostly confine himself to making personal attacks against me on talk pages. I didn't EARN any interaction ban with him, and both myself and I'm pretty sure Yunshui have already explained this to LBW. The IBAN was introduced on my request to keep Tristan noir from hounding me, but then he violated it and I was forced to come back here and get the ban amended. He is now indefinitely banned from interacting with me or making any edits related to Japanese literature. He's not going to post here, because he is also no longer active on Misplaced Pages -- not because I "harassed" him, but because if he is not allowed post spam promoting his self-published books and the self-published books of his friends, he doesn't think it's worth editing Misplaced Pages. A glance at Misplaced Pages: Editing restrictions will back me up here. (I was also encouraged, by Yunshui and others, to avoid "gravedancing" in this case, but since LBW persists in making in ridiculous personal attacks against me, and neither Lukeno no Cuchullain know enough about the Tristan noir incident to set him straight, I think I'm justified in explaining this here.)
- Another thing to explain. The reason I am (at least for the time being) refraining from editing at home is thus: JoshuSasori apparently contacted my workplace after Mysterious Island got blocked. My division chief then called me into a "performance review" meeting with my sub-division chief and my supervisor. He asked me if I thought I was doing anything with my office computer that I shouldn't be. Given that JoshuSasori had threatened to do what he did, I knew immediately what he was talking about. I apologized for editing Misplaced Pages at work and promised to immediately refrain from editing Misplaced Pages at work. However, given that the edits that made JoshuSasori do this were all made at home, I figured that if I continued editing at all I ran the risk of JoshuSasori contacting my office again and claiming "He's still doing it." Since Japanese local governments who can't fire their employees care more about public image than anything that is actually going on inside the office, this might have meant a blanket ban on viewing Misplaced Pages anywhere within the municipal office, even if my superiors believed me when I explained to them that I hadn't been editing Misplaced Pages at work, and that would have severely impinged my ability to actually do my translation work. (Ironic, really.) Three days later, anyway, my division chief took me to the meeting room again and reinforced the earlier ban, telling me definitively that there had been a complaint from outside the office, and told me not to concern myself with who had made it. Apparently, JoshuSasori (or one of his Japanese friends) posed as a concerned taxpayer in the rural municipality I work in, rather than as my Tokyo-based foreign (i.e., non-voting) cyberstalker. I could have explained this to my division chief, but I'm a contract employee on a one-year contract, and in Japan being a foreigner on a work visa and being unemployed for three months gets you kicked out of the country. This is why I am willing to completely abstain from editing Misplaced Pages not only from my office computer but also under my own username, apart from a single post to explain that I have wikiretired.
- I care about my job (and my ability to stay in Japan) approximately eight million times more than I care about Misplaced Pages.
- The reason I am posting this (and the above 0-word comment) under an IP is two-fold. I want to keep any further edits (I don't intend to make any to the article space anyway) off of my current account's record so I have actual proof that my activity on Misplaced Pages is almost if not entirely non-existent. I might need this if JoshuSasori isn't happy having forced me off Misplaced Pages, and continues trying to get me fired by haranguing my employers anyway. I might need to demonstrate to them that I haven't been editing Misplaced Pages. The other reason is that, yes, today is also a working day in Japan, but I have the day off. If I edit anonymously, my IP is proof positive that I am not editing at work.
- Lastly, I need to emphasize that, if I hadn't retired from Misplaced Pages, I would have been saying that I care more about Misplaced Pages than about my job and my residency status. This would have marked me as an anti-social psychopath. Now, I may or may not care about my activity on Misplaced Pages more than the jobs of other people I don't know. However, in order to harangue someone's employers because I don't like their edits on Misplaced Pages, I would need to have an Ed Gein-like complete lack of empathy for my fellow humans. In other words, I would need to be an anti-social psychopath. If LBW continues to claim that it is my fault that JoshuSasori is an anti-social psychopath after hearing this, he should be indefinitely blocked. In fairness, he is only posting here because he didn't like my stance on diacritics, and preferred JoshuSasori. Even if he does not specifically mention diacritics here, he has been continuing to violate the spirit of his TBAN, because his attacks on me are all obviously diacritic-based.
- Goodbye. 126.0.96.220 (talk) 01:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- Anyone is free to compare the Edit Count contributions of both editors. Add in the contributions of MI if you want to be fair. You don't consider your trashing of his user page, which seems to have started it, to have been harassment? What about the attack on Jeffrey Woodward? The time-and-date stamp on your edits makes it perfectly clear whether you are editing during office hours or not. Nothing is stopping you from editing outside office hours—or from researching work-related topics on Misplaced Pages during office hours, if you are allowed to do that. If you want to make claims like "JoshuSasori is an anti-social psychopath" then you should provide diffs showing that he has had major arguments with editors other than you. Otherwise you had better read WP:NPA. Whether your contract is renewed or not depends on your positive and proactive contributions (or otherwise) at your office rather than on Misplaced Pages, and certainly not on the banning of JoshuSasori from Misplaced Pages. LittleBen (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
- What's "gross" here is LittleBen's attempt to blame the victim for being harassed at work, and then reopening that unproductive tangent to gravedance some more. And people wonder why it's so hard to retain good editors these days.--Cúchullain /c 17:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.0.96.220 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Urgent protection needed
Could an admin please semi-protect Cüneyt Çakır now? I've already filed a request for semi-protection but it's taking some time and things are getting out of hands.Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ask and ye shall receive: Sarek and I practically fell over each other in our hurry to protect. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Very much appreciated. It's seldom a hurry at Misplaced Pages, but with 4-5 IP-insults per minute, and probably more to come when the game finishes, I thought it best to fix it fast. Thanks for the fast action!Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
User:J._Johnson - hostile environment.
As noted multiple times, this is not the correct forum by a longshot. The OP has been advised as to where to take it - if they choose to ignore the advice provided, then so be it (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thus far we have 3 users who have indicated action is needed and one who as indicatd it isn't. Closing as no action is clearly premature.--Elvey (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just to keep the record straight, I submit that the complainant Elvey has weak support from one user (Ego White Tray), and has not "proven to be repeatedly disruptive" any behavior at Earthquake prediction but what has his name on it.
- As Elvey wants to invoke a community ban or such, I ask: would this occasion be appropriate for discussing a topic on him? Or should that go to AN/I? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Pages: Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs),
User being reported: J._Johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notices have been sent to J._Johnson, Readin, Ronz, NewsAndEventsGuy, Ego White Tray, J. Johnson.
Attempts to resolve disputes on article talk page: Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2, (and Talk:Earthquake_prediction).
Comments:
Reading WP:DDE and WP:BAN (which says, "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) ") leads me to post here. I have noticed that over the long term, an unusually large fraction of JJ's edits appear to be disruptive, tendentious, hostile, and/or edit warring (though blatant 3RR violation is avoided).
He is aggressively arguing with many editors in ways that frequently lead to well-founded accusations of policy violations, and the rule, rather than the exception, is that he refuses to get the point - whether it is a clear explanation of how policy applies or does not apply to a particular edit or series of edits. Multiple attempts by multiple editors to control the spread of disruption arising from long-term disputes have failed. JJ's apparrent level of comprehension of comments directed toward him is so low I frequently find it indicative of refusal to get the point, that is, WP:IDHT, W:CIR.
An unusually large fraction of JJ's edits are to Talk pages, and an unusually large fraction of those talk page edits are hostile comments toward fellow editors.
Proposed Sanctions
I see imposition of 1RR as a solution; many users have left the user constructive feedback, but it's clear from the responses that it falls on deaf ears, as it is often removed or hatted.
If that's not an option available to admins, then a full block indefinitely, or for a while, may unclog the ears, so to speak. WFM. Elvey (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The summaries (and links to edit diffs) at User_talk:J._Johnson&action=history and comments on Talk:Earthquake_prediction/Archive_2 by JJ are hardly anything but example after example of WP:disruptive editing by JJ!
WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not justify JJ's constant ownership-based reverts to vast numbers of other editors edits to Earthquake prediction, and similar articles!
The edit summaries alone at User_talk:J._Johnson&action=history show that everyone else is wrong, and JJ is right, according to JJ; you don't even need to look at the diffs:
- "Removed POV nonsense" - JJ to Readin, who asked for civility.
- "Bah. Waste of time, collapsing" - JJ to Ronz,
- To NewsAndEventsGuy's"Battleground alert, again": (post-">20" incidents...so eloquent!): <ignored>, after "where in WP:BATTLEGROUND does it say there is an exception for "little" piling on?"
- <again> "Removing empty section I don't have time to prepare." - JJ to Ego White Tray - , - More evidence JJ thinks this is 'his' article, in violation of WP:OWN.
- (This requires viewing at least a snippet of the diff.) The comment summary, What is "adequate proof"?: Why? is the best - in response to Inamos and Dave souza, JJ's reply includes, ""adequate" is whether the person addressed is persuaded. Well, your original arguments did not persuade me, so by that criterion: not adequate." This goes a long way to explaining the "logic" behind most of JJ's edits.
- (If someone wants to be pedantic and insist on actual diffs rather than the format above, let me know here and I'll add links to the above 5 diffs.)
- JJ fails to understand simple things - JJ doesn't believe that "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Rather, he INSISTs that I MUST prove that "Coren's findings are notable", or allow his removal of them from Earthquake prediction to stand, and even berates me for my belief. He seems to believe that unless he's convinced a change is correct, he should keep it out of Misplaced Pages, policy be damned. He even goes so far as to insist on keeping out ANY MENTION of this esteemed scientist's published study from being mentioned because its "scientific notability" has not been established (despite multiple news reports about it),and (!) it is not <sic> a reliable source. JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy to justify removing it. JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy to justify removing it. JJ has insisted that it is out of place in an article on the fringe/proto-science of earthquake prediction because of WP:FRINGE - as if the article on the Flat Earth theory should not talk about the main claims in support of that theory either! Please note, I don't see this as a content dispute at all; I happened to find this Coren article interesting, I added it.
Of the last 150 edits to Earthquake_prediction, 68 are by JJ. His edits are in 16 contiguous blocks, 12 of them -that is, all but 4 of his edit blocks contain reverts by him, of half a dozen different editors' attempts to improve 'his' article. (Several are hidden; they are not tagged "Undid revision", but can be found by looking at char deletion counts and edit summaries.)
Even where JJ is mainly right content-wise, he's mainly in the wrong, hostility and policy-wise (e.g. Re. Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change).
To understand why my editing is productive, see Misplaced Pages:Disruptive_editing#Distinguished_from_productive_editing. And, I welcome constructive feedback; I know I'm not perfect. --Elvey (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Ego White Tray
I stumbled across earthquake prediction one day and started a discussion about mostly cosmetic and style changes. I don't know the topic well, so I won't speak to content issues. My notes about inappropriate tone, off-topic content and excessive quote boxes were first accused of being the act of a sockpuppet (since an IP had recently placed the same tags that JJ removed for no reason), and my arguments were pretty much ignored. I faced a whole lot of strawman arguments, some outright ludicrous ("if you are not interested in statements of scientists..." appears in Archive 2). My suggestion to take quotes out of quote boxes and move them into prose was equated with deleting them altogether, something I never said. JJ then removed the tag for no other reason that I hadn't commented in 10 days. My statement that I understood what he was trying to do was equated with agreement (it wasn't).
I hope that JJ can learn to ignore the small stuff and let it be. JJ, give WP:FUCK a good read. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy
First, is this the right place for an ANI regarding editor behavior? Last, I note that editors who have voiced negative feedback to JJ were notified. Since it is at least possible that there are many editors on the various article talk pages who might feel differently, but were not notified, one might wonder whether I feel inappropriately canvassed? And I might say that I do.... if I gave a WP:FUCK. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- PS I just noticed Elvey's preliminary inquiry about canvassing, and would just like to thank him/her for thinking about it up front. Like the answer you got said....it is a tricky issue. No worries here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Response by J. Johnson
In the first place, this does not seem to be the appropriate venue for this, but here we are.
Second, this complaint is nothing more than the extension of a dispute at Talk:Earthquake prediction, and the inclusion of Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change is only an attempt to widen the base from which he would pick complaints. Indeed, of the five edit summaries he complains of only one is from Earthquake prediction, where I removed an empty section for the reason stated. (And neither that edit nor the summary support his point.) (He also mischaracterizes the discussion cited in his point #5.)
Without going into a point-by-point rebuttal (but I will respond to any specific requests), the principal dispute is that Elvey is fixated on including certain material, the "Coren dog study". I have opposed this on the grounds that such an inclusion would violate the WP policies regarding fringe, notability, and reliable sources, besides being unuseful and would give one section undue weight vis-a-vis other sections. (See Talk:Earthquake prediction/Archive 2#Coren.27s dog findings.3F for the details.). A secondary dispute regards the quote boxes (and "quote farm" tagging). There I have provided a response I believe adequate for any reasonable person, to which Elvey has not demurred on any point.
The bottom line here is that Elvey wants to include some inherently unsuitable material. And not being able deny its unsuitability he would beat down my objection with these bombastic and unfounded complaints that I am "hostile". I submit that the complaint really should run the other way. I would particularly complain of various demeaning statements. E.g.: "JJ's constant ownership-based reverts to vast numbers of other editors edits ...", "JJ fails to understand simple things", "JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy", etc.
P.S. Just this evening Elvey has intruded himself into a civil discussion between myself and another editor with this. I deem this to be harassment, and a demonstration of bad faith. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note Yup. None of the above legalistic wall-o-texts above belong here at all. Climate change articles are under restrictions, IIRC. ANI doesn't do reams of junk like the above. If the OP has a complaint that is not related to existing ArbComm or AE restrictions, then try less than 2 paragraphs of complaint with diff's. If you're trying to prove a pattern of behaviour AND you love wall-o-text, try an WP:RFC/U. Otherwise, the above will merely fade into the archives unanswered (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed. I was involved in the content dispute for a short while but dropped out in December. I also mistakenly warned Elvey about 3RR (see my post at the Village pump technical as the addition of a 'see also' produced an edit summary calling it a revert). Elvey's response was the templated warning "Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates" and despite my apology and explanation he maintained his accusation that I'd abused the template and that in fact he hadn't exceeded 2RR even (he had). I mention all of this not just because he was being a bit aggressive but because he must be aware of my involvement and that I wasn't supporting him in the dispute. If JJ hadn't notified me (neutrally) I wouldn't be aware of this, so I agree that there is inappropriate canvassing. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh. My. God. Your accusation is BLATANTLY false, Doug, as I've explained. You did abuse the template. I thought you finally realized that, indeed, I hadn't exceeded 2RR, and that's why you hadn't responded after I posted the linked-to reply. And, I noticed that you are here after JJ . I don't understand how someone - an admin with as many edits as you, to the articles you edit, could possibly not know that it takes 4 reverts to violate 3RR. If you commented here to show that I'm in the wrong, you couldn't have picked a better COUNTER-example. Thanks! Are you going to admit your wrong, or continue to deny reality, Doug? Or must I admit and love the fact that 2+2=5? --Elvey (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight. Your post to my talk page then included the statement " I didn't break 3RR, and I didn't break 2RR.".]You repeat this on your talk page.. Now you are admitting to 2RR? Which you did. I never suggested that you violated 3RR and I explained why I thought you'd hit 3RR in detail and enquired at the Vllage Pump (Technical) as to why your 3rd edit said "revert" in the automatic edit sujmmary (of course, if you'd made an edit summary yourself I wouldn't have warned you). Now you've been here longer than I am (although you have few edits), and you were quoting 3RR in 2006), and yet you clearly don't understand the use of the warning template. It's used when an editor reaches 3RR (or perhaps more if they haven't been warned) to inform them of the fact that another revert can get them blocked. It doesn't say that the editor has reach 4RR. The reason I didn't reply again was that it dealing with you is difficult and boring and I had better things to do than repeat myself again. It's been a long time since your were blocked indefinitely for failure to get a clue and creating a hostile editing environment but you really need to start AGFing and being more civil. Dougweller (talk) 07:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Response by _
Reply by Elvey
Ego White Tray,
Thanks, that's a useful summary. I would say that with me, I ALSO found 1)my arguments were pretty much ignored, 2)inappropriate tone was the norm too, and 3)suggestions were misrepresented in ludicrous ways as well - e.g. the strawman arguments where JJ insists that I had said 'WP:WEIGHT is nonsense" when I had (of course) said pretty much the opposite: I wrote, to show that WEIGHT supported inclusion of Coren, "How many people think animals can predict earthquakes? Lots. You are aware that the Chinese have an official snake-based early warning system?" But JJ didn't respond to that question, but rather, falsely, tendentiously and distractingly, accused me THREE TIMES, of saying WEIGHT is nonsense, even though after EACH accusation, I tell him that I had never said that, rather I quoted from WEIGHT three times, with quotes that show that it SUPPORTS Coren's inclusion in , an "article on the historical views" of the idea that earthquakes are predictable, because what including Coren does is "discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief"!
Bwilkins,
You seem to be ignoring the reason I gave for posting here; it's in the OP - the very first sentence of my comment: "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) " - and I wish to discuss community sanctions, so I started this thread. How can you make me wrong for doing exactly what policy says I may do? Why do you chose to get all hostile and insult my writing, which I tried hard to make readable 'and skimmable', with terms like wall-o-text and REAMS OF JUNK? Would you please consider and share your opinion on whether JJ has been creating a hostile environment, and if he has, what sanction is appropriate? I provided the edit summaries of 5 diffs, and the diffs. If my post is too long for your taste, and you had time to reply but not read it, then just read the edit summaries of the 5 numbered diffs and let me know. TL;DR 5 summaries? No way.
Generally, it's interesting how JJ refuses to acknowledge that the topic is creating a hostile environment in general, but rather attempts to redefine it, to draw attention away from the fact that there's ample evidence he's been creating a hostile environment all over Misplaced Pages. Regarding Coren, I have responded both here and on the article talk page, as to why my contribution regarding Coren is suitable, citing relevant policy ad nauseum, most recently yesterday but JJ has not replied! Of course, having brought this issue to administrator attention, I expect a certain amount of attention to my comments, such as the ones JJ mentions - "JJ's constant ownership-based reverts to vast numbers of other editors edits ...", "JJ fails to understand simple things", "JJ repeatedly fabricated and mis-represented policy", etc. I've cited a number of editors who have termed JJ's edits hostile, and I think my comments which are quoted are measured and I took pains to avoid inflammatory or making ad-hominem comments, but as I said, "I welcome constructive feedback; I know I'm not perfect." Calling what appear to be ownership-based reverts as such is not hostile, it's appropriate, when the justification is supported with references to policy and JJ's edits, as my comments were. Ditto where policy has been fabricated and mis-represented.--Elvey (talk) 03:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- The problem here is that neither the AN nor ANI are suitable for this sort of discussion. AN as said above is for matters affecting administrators. Your dispute with another editor does not "affect" administrators per se. Normally, I would have also said ANI is the place for this but you've linked to so much stuff that the only possible recourse you have is RFC/U. As for community sanctions, these are such things as topic bans, site bans, interaction bans, ARBCOM or discretionary sanctions etc. JJ has none of these sanctions and generally discussions of these don't occur here until the subject of the sanction has been hauled to ANI or perhaps SPI several times (not really a policy based view but just a general observation). Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Blackmane,
- What you're saying blatantly contradicts policy. It's simply not true, based on "Community sanctions may be discussed on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) ", which as I said, is a direct quote from WP:BAN, in particluar the section WP:CBAN. A more extensive quote:
Community bans and restrictions
- The community, through consensus, may impose various types of sanctions on editors who have exhausted the community's patience:
- If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Misplaced Pages, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.
- Community sanctions may be discussed on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response. Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue, usuallyMisplaced Pages:Editing restrictions or Misplaced Pages:List of banned users.
- So your statement that "the only possible recourse you have is RFC/U" is simply, well, false. Would you please consider and share your opinion on whether JJ has been creating a hostile environment, and if he has, what sanction is appropriate? I provided the edit summaries of 5 diffs and more recently, the actual diffs, and a link to more. If my post is too long for your taste, and you had time to reply but not read it, then just read the edit summaries of the 5 numbered diffs and let me know. TL;DR for 5 summaries? No way. --Elvey (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I actually did read the whole post you laid out above. ALso your linking directly to the community sanctions section is all well amnd good, but in general that is rarely how things end up happening. It's nice that you tried to make it conform to what you read in the guide but usually admins prefer something short and sweet. That aside, if you wish for an opinion, then it would be that: the environment is no more "hostile" than others I've seen. There are 3 editors involved in the vast majority of the discussion on the talk page archive that you linked me to, yourself, Ego White Tray and JJ. When discussion becomes limited to such a small number then drawing lines in the sand will of course lead to friction. This is probably a dumb question, but have WP:3O or WP:DRN been attempted? Blackmane (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm here to determine community consensus. I don't care if you prefer a longer, more drawn out, more-complicated-than-I-can-grok process, because this one is acceptable under policy, and I'm determined to see it through. Just three? I showed that there are multiple editors other than those three who have had lengthy disputes with JJ that are problematic. Even where JJ is mainly right content-wise, he's mainly in the wrong, hostility and policy-wise (e.g. Re. Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change). Where are EWT and I in that? --Elvey (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and 660 of your 1487 edits are to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (605) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (55). — Blackmane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Elvey (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is uncalled for and suggests you haven't read WP:SPA - or WP:AGF for that matter. You seem happy to template experienced editors and now you've tried to denigrate someone by salling them an SPA. Have you evidence that this editor has been generally unconstructive? A quick glance at Blackmane's talk page history turns up which is an Admin's compliment for a post by Blackmane to another editor trying to help that editor with a problem. I think you owe Blackmane an apology. I'd hate to think you'd returned to old habits - but this sort of comment does "create a hostile editing environment". Yes, that was a long time ago, but some of your recent posts (and your exchange with me) haven't exactly improved the editing environment. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- (repost) I read SPA up to where it mentioned the template, then I read the template and used it. AFAIK, there's no rule against identifying a suspected SPA, there is for identifying a suspected SOCK, but apples and oranges. If I'm wrong and there is, I apologize in advance. I'm off to read SPA in full. Please take a moment to respond to my reply to your comment above about 3RR, Doug. --Elvey (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- This is uncalled for and suggests you haven't read WP:SPA - or WP:AGF for that matter. You seem happy to template experienced editors and now you've tried to denigrate someone by salling them an SPA. Have you evidence that this editor has been generally unconstructive? A quick glance at Blackmane's talk page history turns up which is an Admin's compliment for a post by Blackmane to another editor trying to help that editor with a problem. I think you owe Blackmane an apology. I'd hate to think you'd returned to old habits - but this sort of comment does "create a hostile editing environment". Yes, that was a long time ago, but some of your recent posts (and your exchange with me) haven't exactly improved the editing environment. Dougweller (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and 660 of your 1487 edits are to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (605) and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (55). — Blackmane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Elvey (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Note: I had closed this disruptive and improper filing - my close text still appears at the top of this thread. Elvey has very disruptively re-opened this, after repeated directions as to where this complaint belongs. I fear a wP:BOOMERANG may be flying very very soon, especially based on their most recent comments above (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Repeating your claim that it's improper doesn't make it so. What you're saying blatantly contradicts policy; see direct quotes from WP:BAN, in particular the section WP:CBAN, that I posted above, to Blackmane. Or are you going to avoid having an actual discussion? --Elvey (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and you seem bent on avoiding actual productive engaged conversation. I wrote
- Thus far we have 3 users who have indicated action is needed and one who as indicatd it isn't. Closing as no action is clearly premature.--Elvey (talk) 10:10 am, Today (UTC−8)
- Don't threaten me when I have made it quite clear why I think that what I've done is do exactly what the policy says I may do, and you've made no effort whatsoever to provide any evidence that I'm wrong (other than to state your opinion, as if your opinion automatically should have the standing of actual policy...)--Elvey (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
massive suppression on Cla68's talk page
The fact that one's contributions have been oversighted does not imply that there were any problems with the contributions themselves, only that they occurred between an oversightable post and the time it was oversighted; it's just an unfortunate artifact of the software design. Whether particular posts should have been oversighted is outside of the scope of this noticeboard and is better directed to the oversight team or ArbCom. Nothing more for admins to do here. 28bytes (talk) 13:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I notice that every edit made between 06:12, 4 March 2013 and 16:29, 5 March 2013 on Cla68's talk page have been redacted. As a normal editor I have no ability to determine if the edits were supressed or deleated by administrative means. Given the context surrounding Cla68's talkpage, I suspect it was oversighted under critera one (Removal of non-public personal information). There are ~57 consecutive revisions to the page redacted. The redacted content includes replies by ~9 sysops, including multiple functionaries and members of the arbitration committee. There seems to be a contridiction here. If the users (both administrators and other long-time contributors) were posting non-public personal information all of the users involved should apparently be subject to sanction. If they were not, this appears to be a gross misuse of the the supression tool. If there is a vaild rationale would someone please explain why there was supression but no action taken (even a warning) to the users whos edits were supressed? This was posted to the AN after much thought, as I believe that an action of this nature requires community review. Regards, Crazynas 07:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The last revision deletion was performed on 12:47, 16 August 2012 as such, I must assume this was an act of supression. Crazynas 07:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The way it works is that individual revisions have to be suppressed/revision deleted. So that would include all revisions from the time the material entered the page until it was removed. --Rschen7754 07:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- What Rschen said - this is the way the software works. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's not so much the way the software works, it's the way oversighters work - in that intermediate revisions also have to be suppressed because they all contain the problematic material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) At 16:11, 4 March 2013 Fluffernutter made a (currently supressed) edit to the talk page. When searching the page, there is no timestamped signature (by Fluffernutter or otherwise) at that time, since I suspect she knows how to sign her posts, unless she posted something inapproprate why was her post not re-instated on the page (as in fact Cla68's unblock request was, in an redacted form)? (This timestamp was chosen at random, but a sampling shows that none of the edits examined so far have been reinstated). Crazynas 07:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I can see straight away what got suppressed:
- 06:12, 4 March 2013 Mathsci (talk | contribs) . . (287,581 bytes) (+1,485) . . (→More eyes?: copied over from wikipediocracy)
- It looks like someone posted a link to the thread on redact that has been the root cause of all this controversy. Unfortunately, removing it from the history has meant that a lot of subsequent posts had to be removed as well - you can't just suppress the original post, you have to suppress every post in which it subsequently appears. Prioryman (talk) 07:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- But if those posts do not contain objectionable material they could be copied and reposted by the OS right? Crazynas 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- No. Suppressing the intermediate revisions does not remove the actual contributions, as they are still there in the revision after the last one suppressed. Fluffernutter's comment is still there, tagged "A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)" - there can be a minor time difference between the tagging in the talk page and the record in the history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well that is a big self trout on that one, although now I'm questioning why we have logs at all if the (sever generated) timestamp and the (sever generated) log don't agree. Crazynas 08:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The "timestamp" in the talk page is just a piece of text written into the actual page content as part of a signature, and the actual logging can't see that and just logs the time - and that is inevitably a tiny bit later than the talk page content was generated, occasionally spanning a minute boundary -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well that is a big self trout on that one, although now I'm questioning why we have logs at all if the (sever generated) timestamp and the (sever generated) log don't agree. Crazynas 08:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- No. Suppressing the intermediate revisions does not remove the actual contributions, as they are still there in the revision after the last one suppressed. Fluffernutter's comment is still there, tagged "A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)" - there can be a minor time difference between the tagging in the talk page and the record in the history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- But if those posts do not contain objectionable material they could be copied and reposted by the OS right? Crazynas 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I can see straight away what got suppressed:
- Also, each individual edit may not contain enough personal information but taken as a whole, it does. I only came upon this after blocking had already occured. It took only about 2 minutes to piece together the website and the user people were talking about. I had heard about neither of them before that. Oversighting of the talk page should have removed all website and all username mentions. Once the decision was made that it was a violation of WP:OUTING, oversighting should have been vigorous and thorough. Previous discussions serve no purpose and future discussions only make it worse. --DHeyward (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- What Rschen said - this is the way the software works. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- The way it works is that individual revisions have to be suppressed/revision deleted. So that would include all revisions from the time the material entered the page until it was removed. --Rschen7754 07:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- User talk:Cla68 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)
- The history of the user talk page shows lots of struck-out timestamps, including the four comments that I made. However, the talk page shows my four comments, and they appear to be intact (perhaps they were copy/pasted?). Someone with a suitable paygrade might explain the technical issues involved, but I support the removal of any comments linking to OUTING, despite everyone knowing how to find the outing if they want. The community needs to choose between (a) support for free speech (where editors can post links to show that they can post such links), or (b) support for the WP:OUTING policy. Free speech is great, but that's not our role, whereas the community absolutely must know that all forms of outing are prohibited. Johnuniq (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's because those comments were still there in the revision after the last suppressed one - suppression does not revert the comments or change the state of the current revision, it just removes the old revisions from the history. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Something else that might help clarify - it was not the suppression that actually removed the offending material from the talk page, it was the "16:29, 5 March 2013 Enric Naval" edit commented as "remove offending link for the same reasons are original links". All the subsequent suppression did was prevent anyone looking at the previous revisions that contained that link - it did not remove anything from the contents of the talk page. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, the problem is the community is not 100% behind 'all forms of outing are prohibited'. Thats not what outing policy says. Its quite specific. Where someone has voluntarily posted info that leads to their identity being disclosed on wikipedia, thats a massive grey area and OUTING is regularly ignored in those circumstances (especially at COIN) And even apart from that, its certainly not cut and dried as to what constitutes outing. Jimbo himself says that posting publically available WHOIS info is not outing. The problem at the moment is that its practically impossible to get a discussion going without it being shut down/oversighted even with the barest of particulars as I have used. I could make a two-word edit to the outing policy that would pretty much completely invalidate any arguments that what Cla did was outing, while leaving the policy intact. Thats how murky it is. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Connecting the dots to out an editor (where they have not revealed the personal information on Misplaced Pages) is prohibited. Please do not make claims about a named editor such as Jimbo without a link to verify the claim, and to allow the context in which the statement was made to be examined. ANI and many other noticeboards shows numerous examples of editors who misunderstand standard procedures every day, and while disappointing, it is not surprising to find that some editors do not understand that OUTING is OUTING. As an example, if someone were to find a whois record linking my username to my real name, do you really think they should be entitled to post that on Misplaced Pages? Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think the use of whois records is clear cut. For example, we frequently use them to identify the geographical location of IP editors, and that is not treated as a violation of Outing policy as it is obvious public-domain information. But if, for example, you used your Misplaced Pages username as a domain, and a whois on that domain revealed your real name, I'd expect that to be covered by Outing if you had not disclosed your use of the domain name on-wiki. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- You would need to go through Jimbo's archive to find his quite clear view on publically available WHOIS data. It was regarding a certain problematic high profile banned editor. I wish you luck with that. You missed my point however. I wasnt disputing what OUTING actually currently says, but that its far from clear that certain actions are outing in line with the current wording. If you make no attempt to hide your identity on the internet, then make disruptive actions on wikipedia that directly bring attention and scrutiny to your identity because its linked to the problem, saying that because you have not directly said 'I AM X' on Misplaced Pages the links cannot be drawn is ridiculous and far from the intent of the outing policy. If a banned editor has openly identified themselves on other publically viewable wikimedia property (Commons, meta, public mailing lists etc) frankly the outing policy as written is not equipped to deal with the issues this causes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Incorrect. Connecting the dots to out an editor (where they have not revealed the personal information on Misplaced Pages) is prohibited. Please do not make claims about a named editor such as Jimbo without a link to verify the claim, and to allow the context in which the statement was made to be examined. ANI and many other noticeboards shows numerous examples of editors who misunderstand standard procedures every day, and while disappointing, it is not surprising to find that some editors do not understand that OUTING is OUTING. As an example, if someone were to find a whois record linking my username to my real name, do you really think they should be entitled to post that on Misplaced Pages? Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to be a little late to this dramafest and spoil everybody's fun. Unfortunately the oversighting of User talk:Cla68 has a rather boring explanation. In including Cla68's off-wiki response to Newyorkbrad, I gave an external link to his response in a thread on the external website. Enric Naval noticed that going to that off-wiki thread might tempt readers to go elsewhere on that site, where all manner of evil lurks, so redacted the link with a message in which he unfortunately said exactly that. He also added the edit summary mentioned above. He then contacted oversight and then me by email. I then responded to him and wrote also to arbcom-l. I then redacted my message by removing the external link to the response (simply labelled "here") together with Enric Naval's commentary. In my message to arbcom-l (as part of the oversight team) I said they could remove both diffs (I misplaced Cla68's message initially) or just the word "here" with its EL. Given my later redaction, they chose the option all can see now which seems fine to me. Although it's not particularly obvious even now, Enric Naval had stated in his email that Cla68, when unblocked, had drawn attention to external link—possibly meaning my link to his message—on his user talk page. I assume this was discussed by arbitrators and/or oversighters and I certainly haven't had a reply to my post to arbcom-l (note that Roger Davies had changed the settings so that any post from me would go directly onto the list, bypassing the moderator). I should also explain that Enric Naval is a wikifriend of mine. I know that he is not a native English speaker. That is reflected in the slightly odd phrasing and tone of his edit summary that various folks have tried to dissect in gory detail above. Anyway that is what seems to have happened. Mathsci (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I know for a fact that there wasn't anything infringing on policy in my contributions to the discussion on Cla68's talk page. So would someone with oversight permission kindly rescue them from the diffs I can't view - it should be easy enough - and drop them on my talk page. If that's not possible, I'd appreciate knowing why not, as it would strike me as unnecessary collateral damage. Thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC) P.S. My preferred option would be for the whole lot to be restored, with as many (Redacted)s as need be, but I'm sure somebody will come up with a reason why that can't be done.
- I don't think anybody has removed any of your contributions - they're all still in the current revision, aren't they? (Suppression does not remove the content - it takes an actual edit/revert to do that) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't quite sure if the remaining visible text was all of it, what with being unable to view the diffs. Snowolf has pulled them out and it seems I didn't lose anything - thanks Snowolf! (This strikes me as something of a software failing; it should be possible to allow diffs to remain visible, I think, in isolation from the actual page content.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be good because you'd then still be able to see the genuinely problematic material in the diffs too, which would defeat the purpose of suppression. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- By "diff" I mean the indicator of modified text. Around here the word diff is often incorrectly used (assumed?) to mean "specific version of a page", because diffs are displayed by MediaWiki in tandem with the result of their being applied to a previous page version. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's the same sort of thing that happens on a fairly regular basis on WP:ANI or here. Intervening edits are affected which explains why they suppressed the diffs (but not the added content) between my initial and final postings. Mathsci (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- That wouldn't be good because you'd then still be able to see the genuinely problematic material in the diffs too, which would defeat the purpose of suppression. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't quite sure if the remaining visible text was all of it, what with being unable to view the diffs. Snowolf has pulled them out and it seems I didn't lose anything - thanks Snowolf! (This strikes me as something of a software failing; it should be possible to allow diffs to remain visible, I think, in isolation from the actual page content.) — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think anybody has removed any of your contributions - they're all still in the current revision, aren't they? (Suppression does not remove the content - it takes an actual edit/revert to do that) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This seems to be resolved. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Closure of Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Abhidevananda
There is an ongoing conflict over articles relating to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar which arose out of this FT/N discussion. The problem, from my perspective, is quite vexing: Sarkar and some of his organizations/theories are influential in India, and there were some political scrapes he and they got into, so the frequent FT/N "delete all of it" response is not called for. What we have, though, is a mass of promotional articles written apparently by followers from primary sources within the movement, and attempts to get some of these articles deleted or merged (e.g. those for each of the books Sarkar wrote) brought on a very strong backlash from a few editors, plus responses from a bunch of new SPAs. This led to the above SPI, which was inconclusive, but which hasn't been closed; instead, it has turned into a clearing house for keeping score on the various articles and people on both sides. This seems to me to have become utterly nonconstructive, and I ask that it be closed ASAP. But I could also use some advice/criticism about taking this forward. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Strong complaints: As the first editor of all the articles on Sarkar's books I can say I was literally haunted by some users that seems closely connected with the above user:Mangoe: user:bobrayner, User:Garamond Lethe, and some others. I strongly doubt their good faith. I never claimed any SPI for them but I have my suspicions. I expressed, however my strong complaints in some of the AfD's proposed by them. I suggest you all to take a look at this interesting table on "Deletions and AfDs" (made/launched by those users) here. I hope that an admin will thake care of my complaints (unfortunately it has not happened yet). I emphasize that the activity of some of these users seems strongly focused in trying, with persistence, to remove everything that is connected with the Indian philosopher Shrii Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar under the pretext that they are promotional items. For pursuing this aim in a scientific way they even create this page on the sandbox of the user above, containing all the links related with this author. We have clear evidence of the follow-up of their agenda in the revision history here of the page and from some of their thalks. A clear example of that is the improper behavior of user:Garamond Lethe that after losing this AfD he deleted almost the entire article as you can see from the history here. I reverted but after a while the user User:bobrayner again reverted all and the article is now in this poor condition. I could quote here several cases of improper behavior of the user user:bobrayner that seems magically connected with the users above. Are these behaviors adhering to the rules of WP?--Cornelius383 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Taking this to AN/I since their seems to be no admin interest in closing and we're heading for this to blow up again. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Launchballer unblock request
WP:SNOW consensus to unblock. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Launchballer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user who was blocked in 2009 requests an unblock. I feel that this request should be accepted, but also feel that it's something that needs to be decided by the community. Thoughts? Max Semenik (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support unblocking I'm a fan of additional chances, and in light of the scope and nature of the past disruption, I think 3+ years is long enough that another chance would be fair. That they requested an unblock, rather then just resuming to edit under a new account, that would be difficult to link to them after such a long time, also speaks well for them. Assuming there is no evidence to contradict the 3+ years of respecting the block, I support an unblock. Monty845 15:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Unblock. What Monty845 said. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Of course unblocks are cheap. NE Ent 16:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support unblock. We have rope, so why not use it? If they resume their disruptive behavior, someone can always reblock them. WikiPuppies bark 17:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Monty845. TBrandley 02:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Monty — Ched : ? 03:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Meetup/University of Oregon - Heads up about account creations
Hi everyone. I am doing a workshop and an edit-a-thon this weekend - Misplaced Pages:Meetup/University of Oregon - and Friday I'm doing a workshop where I'm attempting to teach about 40 people how to edit Misplaced Pages. They'll be making accounts and so forth, and most will be using computers provided by the University of Oregon. I've heard about people having horror stories of IP's being blocked for this type of thing, so, I'm just letting ya know ahead of time. People will chose their own usernames (aka no institutional names or whatever), and are making good faith edits (we'll be stopping by the Teahouse, for example and working in sandboxes). So...just a heads up! Please don't block us :) SarahStierch (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and I also might be making a good faith sockpuppet to explain how to create an account. I'll probably call it User:SarahStierch2 or something. So no, I'm not going to be doing it in bad faith . Thanks again. SarahStierch (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong forum, file a bugzilla request with the specific IPs that need the account creation limit to be lifted. Snowolf 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think she was asking for help; I read it as being simply a "don't wonder what's going on" notice. Sarah's an admin, so she can create unlimited accounts; if they hit the creation limit, she'll be able to create them herself. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I just had a flashback to being a new editor and being treated like an idiot :) Yes, I just wanted everyone to have a heads up. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think most native English speakers understood you. It would be nice if you could write a general sitenotice, but control its distribution through specific channels, for example, allowing a small note to be displayed in automated tools used by RC patrollers. For example, if someone tried to warn one of these editors, the tool would flag the patroller as to the nature of the IP. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, I just had a flashback to being a new editor and being treated like an idiot :) Yes, I just wanted everyone to have a heads up. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think she was asking for help; I read it as being simply a "don't wonder what's going on" notice. Sarah's an admin, so she can create unlimited accounts; if they hit the creation limit, she'll be able to create them herself. Nyttend (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong forum, file a bugzilla request with the specific IPs that need the account creation limit to be lifted. Snowolf 19:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposed topic ban for user Ricky072
I am proposing the following user Ricky072 be topic banned from all articles relating to Rangers F.C the user only really edits these types of articles, and currently there is a content dispute, which never involved this editor at first, but they decided to join in when the editors who had the dispute had reached a agreement and consensus on how to resolve the issue, they then joined in and opposed the change, and have made it clear they have no intentions to comprise so basically being disruptive i quote the user "'m not willing to compromise - we have 2 editors here who have dedicated themselves to being a disruptive as possible without foundation on the basis they did not get their own way in the "new club" or "phoenix club" deabte." the full discussion can be found here Talk:Rangers_F.C.#So_now_we.27re_reporting_each_other.
As can be seen here from there contritions, Ricky072 (talk · contribs) they are mostly on the article above and any article relating to it, and the odd edit to the club rivals article.
There is two other users who might have to be reported for a topic ban as well, as these 3 editors are preventing a consensus and being disruptive as it does not suit there POV. I accept i did warn the editors i would do this but i did give them the chance to try and resolve it and not to be so obsrutive but the editor/editors are choosing to be. I really did not want to go down this route but believe there is is no other choice given the editor attuide such that a consensus will not be reached
PS i did spell check but it never offered the words i was trying to spell feel free to fix it Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- User informed nowAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've in no way breached any Misplaced Pages guidelines - I simply stated in the talk pages i didn't think facts should be 'compromised' to appease disruptive users. This is a case of over-zealousness from Andrew who acts as if he is some kind of Misplaced Pages authority. Ricky072 (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- please read wp:truth the same policie that i reminded the editors who where pushing a new club agenda wikipedia is not about truth only what reliable sources say, reliable sources say what the editors who had the dispute in the first place and they reacha comprise but that comprise is not to you POV. you might have breeched WP:3rr ive not checked. Again i am not any authority or admin or anything i am merely makign sure the article sticks to policies and it can come to FA eventally but this sort of dispute can hold that back.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 21:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Can some non involved editors please take a look at this, as it is esclating nd cousing the content dispute to not be resolved. (NOTE this is not to get the content dispute resolved but to decided if the user should be topic banned if they are determines they are being disruptive by being obsrutive in getting a consensus) i really do not want to move this onto ANI to get it noticed and replied toAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Very high level of global vandalism from three IP ranges
In January 2013 someone started removing informations and adding wrong informations from three Bosnian ranges to a lot of articles about football (not just in English Misplaced Pages) Here you can find a report by me about this from January. After I reported this vandalism two ranges were blocked in January for two weeks/one month
This ranges are:
- 92.36.208.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
- 31.176.240.0/20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
After this block he started editing from a third range:
- 109.175.0.0/17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log)
In the last weeks new edits from this three ranges caused again a lot of damage. Here a list of IPs of this ranges (WITHOUT the vandalism-IPs from January) which I found without having the opportunity to see all edits from this ranges:
- 92.36.208.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 92.36.209.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 92.36.214.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 92.36.219.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 31.176.241.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 31.176.245.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 31.176.248.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 109.175.54.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 109.175.55.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 109.175.56.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 109.175.58.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 109.175.64.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 109.175.82.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Obviuosly it is again the same manner of vandalism from all three ranges. Sometimes the same articles are damaged and sometimes the same fake names are added into the articles. He also likes to add wrong squad numbers.
I do not know if there is still more vandalism by IPs from this ranges which I could not find and I fear that again a range block could be the only way to stop this vandalism. --Yoda1893 (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Now I found two more IPs from this range which were also used in February and March by the vandal in English Misplaced Pages:
* 31.127.75.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 92.36.217.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
The most of this IPs made also disruptive edits in another language versions of Misplaced Pages (even like he did in January). I also found some more IPs from this ranges which created just in another language versions vandalism So range blocks just in English Misplaced Pages can not completely solve the problem. --Yoda1893 (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Are you sure about 31.127.75.69? That's a British mobile phone company IP. The rest are all from the same Bosnian ISP. I think that might be a false positive. Black Kite (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. This one was added by me due to a mix-up. After I undid the vandalism from this three ranges now for three hours in a lot of language versions I became a little bit confused. ;) --Yoda1893 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
- Another two which are definitely IPs of this vandal:
- 109.175.51.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
- 31.176.243.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) --Yoda1893 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. This one was added by me due to a mix-up. After I undid the vandalism from this three ranges now for three hours in a lot of language versions I became a little bit confused. ;) --Yoda1893 (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
userification please
I requested the admin who closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sherbourne Street to userify it and its talk page to User:Geo Swan/Sherbourne Street, Suffolk. But they have retired their mop and suggested I ask here. Geo Swan (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not terribly relevant to your request, but Cirt did not "retire the mop", their admin rights were removed by ArbCom. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Last straw for Wikipediocracy
This is going nowhere except for additional hot air being blown. The question of Wikipediocracy and its relationship with Misplaced Pages and its editors should be handled in some other forum than this.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is really the last straw. We've enabled Misplaced Pages Review and lately Wikipediocracy for years and all the chilling effects they've tried to have on Misplaced Pages and its editors, even though the site is largely made up of banned editors. But the recent incident involving Cla68 and Kevin (which i'm not discussing here, go to the Arbcom discussion page if you want to argue that one out) went too far. Actively, during the discussion, there was a long discussion thread going on at Wikipediocracy, wherein banned editor Vigilant began outing/doxing any editors whose comments he disliked from the discussion, including doing so to a minor. This was in an attempt to get those editors to stop participating in the Misplaced Pages discussion. Something really needs to be done or steps need to be taken, because this sort of thing can't just be allowed. Make all the jokes you want about the old WP:BADSITES policy, but the strong-arm tactics on Wikipediocracy's part remains. Silverseren 05:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support some form of action against all users involved, which if you want a list and proof and evidence you can contact me privately. This has gone way too far, to the point that users are being censored from an ArbCom case for fear of retaliation by doxing/outing and or other onwiki harassment, which has already happened to users who disagree with the Wikipediocracians point of view, including one administrator. This cannot happen, or Misplaced Pages will not be able to function by consensus, as consensus will become "who's on the opposite side of WO, let's dox them to scare them away". gwickwireediting 05:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- What is written on Wikipediocracy's forums is only a problem if people read it. Perhaps you should stop reading it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry that I don't want people being able to read my personal information. At all. It's a problem because people can read it. They're blatantly violating Misplaced Pages policies, but since it's not on Misplaced Pages, nobody seems to care. gwickwireediting 05:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- If the information is then put into Examiner articles by people like banned editor Kohser, what then? The whole point is that the doxing is trying to be made public to stifle discussion on-wiki. Really, considering your involvement in the site, I don't understand why you don't make comments there trying to stop this sort of thing? Criticism is one thing, harrassment is something completely different. Silverseren 05:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- One link to consider: Streisand effect. OK, 2 links: WP:BEANS IJS — Ched : ? 05:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's why I didn't link anything and did my best to minimize what I said. We can't keep using WP:BEANS as an excuse to not have a conversation, because it lets this sort of harrassment continue. Silverseren 05:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I will also say that I personally know of at least two users that have been on-wiki harassed and impersonated due to their opposition to the POV of the users at the forum topic in question. That's unacceptable. Period. And Silver seren is right. We cannot just say "bah bah bah no conversation WP:BEANS". It's already out, it's already been Streisand'ed at the ArbCom case, so now's the perfect time to talk further while we can without spilling more beans. gwickwireediting 05:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's why I didn't link anything and did my best to minimize what I said. We can't keep using WP:BEANS as an excuse to not have a conversation, because it lets this sort of harrassment continue. Silverseren 05:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- As best I can tell the "outing" Seren is talking about involves Vigilant noting what editors have publicly disclosed on their own userpages. That is not outing. People really need to look up what these terms mean before they start using them. None of the "outed" editors, including the one that sparked this whole kerfuffle in the first place were actually "outed" in any sense of the term. No one revealed private information, but instead noted public information. When it comes to one of the editors being a minor, that wasn't made apparent that I know except by those raising the issue and WO moderators have, all the same, removed those posts from public view because of those concerns. So there is basically no point in bringing this up.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's why I said outing/doxing. Outing is the common term here, but the more appropriate term would be doxing, which is "technique of tracing someone or gather information about an individual using sources on the internet", according to Urban Dictionary. The point is to gather as many scraps about a person on the internet as possible, including real name, address, and phone number. Vigilant was doing this in order to threaten editors on-wiki so that they would stop contributing to the discussion. This needs to stop and needs to be dealt with. Along with DC, you, being a member of the site, should have told them to knock it off. Silverseren 07:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Exploiting information about children is not a nice thing to do, but whilst I saw the information posted it was not clear that the person was a child. However, Seren you are a fine one to complain being as you have added information about children to this site, and has participated in discussions to ensure that such information remained on this site. I don't think y'all can have it both ways by writing articles and adding personal information about children here and then complain when some one does the same on another site.
- As for the chilling effects complaint above, well I've often seen arguments here with regards to minor celebrities, such as small time radio hosts. that if they didn't want their public information spread about the internet they shouldn't do the job that they do. Which is a pretty chilling effect is it not? So I think that if you are participating in the top 5 website then you are all as equally as important as a minor local radio host. So whilst I don't agree with targeting children, if you have children here then you'd better protect them better, and make sure that they are instructed on how to protect their personal information on the internet. I note that unlike this site the WO site removed the personal information about the child. John lilburne (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- "added information about children to this site, and has participated in discussions to ensure that such information remained on this site" ??? I actually have no idea what you're talking about. I've participated in discussions about the CHILDPROTECT policy, yes, since I don't feel it actually does anything to protect children, but I don't see what that has to do with what you said. I assume you're talking about some article i've edited, but I don't know at all which one you're referring to.
- The chilling effects of adding someone's birthyear? I think if that's all the doxing that was being done on people here, no one would care. And it's ridiculous to compare the writing of an encyclopedia article to the malicious gathering of information to threaten someone.
- Though it is nice to have all the Wikipediocracy people coming out to join the show. Three already! Gotta keep up with making sure there's freedom of harassment, huh? Silverseren 08:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Were you not involved in writing an article about some kid who made a YouTube video? An article that was later used as a vehicle to spread rumours across the internet that she was pregnant.
- Though it is nice to have all the Wikipediocracy people coming out to join the show. Three already! Gotta keep up with making sure there's freedom of harassment, huh? Silverseren 08:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- In any case there was no reason for the child to be on an ArbCom page about the indeffing of a prolific editor, and the desysopping of an administrator. No reason for them to be sticking their oar into something they knew very little about. If they want to play adult games they should expect to be treated as an adult.
- The fact is that there are articles all over this site about kids, including shit about where they screw up. If this site is maintaining that and defending keeping such information, I fail to see why those that are participating on this site, particularly on the dramah pages, shouldn't be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. John lilburne (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, no, I have absolutely no idea what person you're talking about. Can you just tell me what article?
- Are you seriously attempting to justify the doxing of a minor by saying that they shouldn't be commenting in a Misplaced Pages discussion? And that, by doing so, they should be "treated as an adult", which apparently means being doxed?
- Again, there is a huge difference between having encyclopedic articles on children who were made famous in a positive sense (Connie Talbot) or a negative sense (Rebecca Black) and doxing children so you can use that information to threaten them. Really, it has nothing to do with children at that point. Doxing someone so you can threaten them is already completely wrong. Silverseren 10:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- You do realise the info about that editor being a child wasnt actually on Misplaced Pages until you and Demi started going on about it? I dont know what you think you are accomplishing here, but at the moment you are far more effectively bringing attention to an editor being a minor than anyone at WO ever did. If that was your intent, well done! Also you misunderstand the basic principle of what outing is. On WP outing is per the outing policy and very specific - it refers to info that has not been previously released on wikipedia. Outside wikipedia its less specific and in line with 'doxing' - which is private info someone has not made public. Revealing info that someone HAS made public and freely posted on the internet, but they havnt linked to a specific identity they are using is a grey area. The general rule of thumb being 'If you dont want people to know stuff about you, dont post that stuff on the internet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the definitions, but I don't see what that has to do with gathering information, public or private, and using it to threaten an editor so that they will stop being involved in an on-wiki discussion. Silverseren 10:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- You do realise the info about that editor being a child wasnt actually on Misplaced Pages until you and Demi started going on about it? I dont know what you think you are accomplishing here, but at the moment you are far more effectively bringing attention to an editor being a minor than anyone at WO ever did. If that was your intent, well done! Also you misunderstand the basic principle of what outing is. On WP outing is per the outing policy and very specific - it refers to info that has not been previously released on wikipedia. Outside wikipedia its less specific and in line with 'doxing' - which is private info someone has not made public. Revealing info that someone HAS made public and freely posted on the internet, but they havnt linked to a specific identity they are using is a grey area. The general rule of thumb being 'If you dont want people to know stuff about you, dont post that stuff on the internet. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Again, there is a huge difference between having encyclopedic articles on children who were made famous in a positive sense (Connie Talbot) or a negative sense (Rebecca Black) and doxing children so you can use that information to threaten them. Really, it has nothing to do with children at that point. Doxing someone so you can threaten them is already completely wrong. Silverseren 10:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just because you say it is 'encyclopedic' does not make it so, mostly it is gossip, prurience, and tittle-tattle. I have no sympathy. Someone that enter the drama boards and pontificates should expect comeback. John lilburne (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Article? Nothing? Gonna ignore that part? Okay, moving on. Those two articles I linked are rather extensive on how they discuss the accomplishments of the children in question. I don't see what that has to do with gossip and such.
- Just because you say it is 'encyclopedic' does not make it so, mostly it is gossip, prurience, and tittle-tattle. I have no sympathy. Someone that enter the drama boards and pontificates should expect comeback. John lilburne (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- And, I guess yes, you were saying that someone who comments on a noticeboard should get doxed and threatened. Good to know. Silverseren 10:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- You'd already linked to the article so no point in me doing so too. How is the posting the real name of someone threatening them? It does no such thing. John lilburne (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- As the very first section of WP:HARASS says: "Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Prioryman (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why would it make someone feel threatened or intimidated? Just because ones neighbours knows ones name and address doesn't make one feel threatened at all. John lilburne (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Really, John, this is disingenuous. As I said at Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment a few days ago, "it's a way of saying "I know who you are and I know where you live/work", with the unspoken implication that the harasser will try to mess with your real-world life, job, relationships etc. Even if the harasser doesn't engage in offline harassment himself, he is advertising the information that a malicious or unhinged individual needs to go after someone." People on Wikipediocracy are not "neighbours", quite a few of them are aggressive and malicious trolls with a track record of abusive behaviour (which is why they are banned here, after all). Prioryman (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- What you describe is a generic problem with anonymous contributor websites, it is a problem with the internet in general. If you can't deal with that then to put it plainly your computer has an off switch. This site is posited on drama and conflict, everywhere one looks there is a battle being waged, you can see it everyday on this board, you have pushed, prodded and brought the troops onto the field of conflict yourself (see YRC). That there may be come backs for participating in the drama is a fact of life. Each person has the option to either live with it or not to get involved with it. So what I'm saying is that what goes around comes around live with it. John lilburne (talk) 12:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Really, John, this is disingenuous. As I said at Misplaced Pages talk:Harassment a few days ago, "it's a way of saying "I know who you are and I know where you live/work", with the unspoken implication that the harasser will try to mess with your real-world life, job, relationships etc. Even if the harasser doesn't engage in offline harassment himself, he is advertising the information that a malicious or unhinged individual needs to go after someone." People on Wikipediocracy are not "neighbours", quite a few of them are aggressive and malicious trolls with a track record of abusive behaviour (which is why they are banned here, after all). Prioryman (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Why would it make someone feel threatened or intimidated? Just because ones neighbours knows ones name and address doesn't make one feel threatened at all. John lilburne (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- As the very first section of WP:HARASS says: "Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Misplaced Pages unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." Prioryman (talk) 10:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- You'd already linked to the article so no point in me doing so too. How is the posting the real name of someone threatening them? It does no such thing. John lilburne (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- And, I guess yes, you were saying that someone who comments on a noticeboard should get doxed and threatened. Good to know. Silverseren 10:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- My first experience with WR was when some producer guy was gunning for your dox in order to set his fan base on you with early morning abusive phone calls. Why he was pissed with you I've no idea and don't greatly care. What I did think and say was that he was wrong to single you out for special attention and should really be directing his ire towards the WMF. What I hadn't realized at that time was the malicious and obnoxious behaviour that some editors here have towards the article subjects, and that the behaviour is ingrained with site's community ethos. Sauce for the goose as the saying goes. John lilburne (talk) 12:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- What exact action do you think can be taken with regards to external sites? Even if you could somehow ban Wikipedians from using them (extremely dubious) how would you enforce it? I could go create account Tom Bombadil, how would you know it's me or not? Alternatively, I could create account Other Wikipedian, imitiate a users's style and then post some crap to get them in hot water here.
- AC Case has 708 watchers, and AC noticeboard has 650 and here there are 3,658. Great publicity for WO. NE Ent 11:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- This came up in Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fæ. Specifically, the ArbCom made the following finding:
- Participation on non-Misplaced Pages websites
- 7) A user's conduct outside of Misplaced Pages, including participation in websites or forums critical of Misplaced Pages or its contributors, is in most cases not subject to Misplaced Pages's norms and policies, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats. Where such circumstances do exist, however, appropriate action including sanctions can be undertaken by either the community or by the Arbitration Committee.
- ArbCom found that one editor, User:Michaeldsuarez, had "created an article on an external website, which may reasonably be considered harassment of Fæ." Michaeldsuarez was indefinitely banned as a result. See also Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket#Conduct outside Misplaced Pages. These two cases set an important precedent: that if a Wikipedian engages in external harassment of another Wikipedian, they can be sanctioned on-wiki. What isn't clear yet is how far exactly this responsibility goes. For example, a thread on Wikipediocracy outing an editor was started by a Wikipedian who is currently "in good standing". Other Wikipedians who are also Wikipediocracy members have participated in this thread. A Misplaced Pages oversighter has actively moderated this thread. In other words, the first editor has initiated harassment, the other editors have participated in the harassment and the oversighter has facilitated the harassment. Which if any of these should face sanctions? This is the kind of question that ArbCom needs to resolve. Prioryman (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Time for Alison to resign?
I note that User:Alison is a moderator on Wikipediocracy. She is also an administrator, oversighter and checkuser on Misplaced Pages. She's actively moderated the thread that SilverSeren mentions, meaning that she's simultaneously overseeing outing on Wikipediocracy - which she has the power to stop, but hasn't - while mitigating it on Misplaced Pages. It's as if she's wearing a black hat and a white hat simultaneously (imagine a Visa employee moderating a credit card fraud forum). I can't see how she can possibly ethically act in both roles; surely she has to choose between them. I and others have asked her about this on her user talk page but haven't received a satisfactory response (and in fact she has ignored most of the discussion). I'm seriously considering raising this with the ArbCom, as I simply can't see how being an oversighter and being an active Wikipediocracy moderator can be reconciled ethically, given Wikipediocracy's repeated and malicious violations of privacy. Prioryman (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- --Surturz (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- So there's already a prior example of this being an issue and then dealt with. Huh, never knew about that one. Silverseren 10:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not really, that's not the same thing. Everyking used his admin permissions on Misplaced Pages to obtain deleted material and then posted about it off-wiki. Alison hasn't done anything remotely like that and I doubt she ever would. This is more about whether her role here and her role there are ethically compatible. Prioryman (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask user:Alison to rerun at RFA, to see if the community still has faith, rather than asking user:Alison to resign outright. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but given the level of drama that this business has entailed I'd be more inclined to ask ArbCom to look at the issue. I think we can do without another community meltdown. Prioryman (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well GO TO ARBCOM then, stop saying 'I might take it to arbcom, inclined to ask arbcom' blah blah blah. As a filer of a case your background regarding privacy and abuse thereof under your current and past usernames will also come to light, so I am sure a large number of editors in good standing would be delighted to have you file a case there. They would line up to help you fill in the form Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but given the level of drama that this business has entailed I'd be more inclined to ask ArbCom to look at the issue. I think we can do without another community meltdown. Prioryman (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be more appropriate to ask user:Alison to rerun at RFA, to see if the community still has faith, rather than asking user:Alison to resign outright. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Not really, that's not the same thing. Everyking used his admin permissions on Misplaced Pages to obtain deleted material and then posted about it off-wiki. Alison hasn't done anything remotely like that and I doubt she ever would. This is more about whether her role here and her role there are ethically compatible. Prioryman (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- So there's already a prior example of this being an issue and then dealt with. Huh, never knew about that one. Silverseren 10:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comparing Wikipediocracy to "a credit card fraud forum" is absurd hyperbole. By the way, I simply can't see how your complaining about that site and being a Misplaced Pages editor can be reconciled ethically, given Misplaced Pages editors' repeated and malicious violations of privacy, posts of hate speech and libel, PR-motivated whitewashing of facts, and financially-motivated editing. — Hex (❝?!❞) FREE KEVIN 11:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree! That's why many Wikipediocracy contributors are banned from Misplaced Pages, as they've been guilty of repeated and malicious violations of privacy, posts of hate speech and libel, PR-motivated whitewashing of facts, and financially-motivated editing. It's not so much a BADSITE as a site used by BADPEOPLE. Prioryman (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- And the same arguments can be aimed at Wikimedia Commons and WMUK. Perhaps you should start there? How many of your friends at WMUK are engaged in the above activities? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree! That's why many Wikipediocracy contributors are banned from Misplaced Pages, as they've been guilty of repeated and malicious violations of privacy, posts of hate speech and libel, PR-motivated whitewashing of facts, and financially-motivated editing. It's not so much a BADSITE as a site used by BADPEOPLE. Prioryman (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just open the arbcom case. Alison commented on several previous occasions that she does not see any problems in being a checkuser and oversighter here and one of the founders there.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- While I cannot say that I agree with how things are run over on WO and with that I perceive to be the cavalier attitude toward people's privacy and while I believe the attitude on the matter from the Moderators team (which includes Alison and other wikimedian(s)) is incompatible with being a productive member of the English Misplaced Pages community entrusted with advanced permissions, that is a private matter for them to consider, not for us to debate, and has nothing to do with the Administrators' noticeboard. I think it would be more productive if you put the question to Alison directly on her talk page, and discuss whatever you feel should be discussed there. There's not really much for us to comment or act on, I feel. Snowolf 12:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the arbcom has the authority to decide on the matter, but in any case this discussion here is a waste of time. The problem has been stated, I do not see anything else here to discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't making any comment on that, but this isn't the arbcom case page either :) There's really nothing for us to look at, discuss or act on, I think and hence this should be moved to some other forum. I was merely providing the suggestion of one that could be productive and appropriate. Snowolf 12:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Right.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wasn't making any comment on that, but this isn't the arbcom case page either :) There's really nothing for us to look at, discuss or act on, I think and hence this should be moved to some other forum. I was merely providing the suggestion of one that could be productive and appropriate. Snowolf 12:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the arbcom has the authority to decide on the matter, but in any case this discussion here is a waste of time. The problem has been stated, I do not see anything else here to discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Personal attacks via email
I have run across a user who has made personal attacks via email, normally I would just throw a npa template with a link to the diff on the talk page however I cannot publicly do so with emails. This user is a relativity new user also. Suggestions on how I should proceed? Werieth (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Just mark the emails as spam! --Surturz (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Contact the people at WP:OTRS and provide them with the information. If they find that someone is abusing the Misplaced Pages email function, they will block that ability. — Ched : ? 06:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- This may stem from a confusion of the "OTRS email response team" and "Misplaced Pages email". OTRS team members have no special ability to snoop on emails sent via Misplaced Pages. We just have access to the inboxes of various Foundation addresses. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Um, that isn't something OTRS can handle. OTRS handles general questions and inquiries from the public as well as permissions issues for files and text. Legoktm (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- If there's no question over the authorship of the emails, and the attacks aren't hugely serious warn them directly about this conduct on their talk page. If the emails are highly problematic or this continues, block them and turn off the ability to send email. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- This actually occurred to me last year. There was a legal threat involved so I copied the entire e-mail, time stamp and all and sent them all to an Administrator. The user was blocked and eventually the entire account was deleted as Spam/promotional etc.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- If there's no question over the authorship of the emails, and the attacks aren't hugely serious warn them directly about this conduct on their talk page. If the emails are highly problematic or this continues, block them and turn off the ability to send email. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Updating interwiki links
- In the old system, if a page is moved, it carries its outgoing interwiki links with it, and incoming interwiki links can find it via the redirect that the page move leaves.
- With the new system of keeping the interwiki links in Wikidata, if I move a page, say from Shrdlu to Cmfwyp, the interwiki link for en:Shrdlu is in Wikidata and its entry there still says "en:Shrdlu". When acting as a link to a Misplaced Pages page, it finds that page via the redirect left by the move. But when acting as a link from a Misplaced Pages page, there is nothing telling readers of en:Cmfwyp to look at en:Shrdlu for its interwiki links, and the user must remember to go into Wikidata and edit the interwiki link himself. This is going to cause a lot of extra work when moving Misplaced Pages pages, and a LOT of broken interwiki links due to people who do not know about going into Wikidata for the interwiki links. Please make it that, when a page is moved, its inter-language link in Wikidata is automatically updated to match. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Delete an article I created
Hi, I created this article, while there was a much larger one already. So, there is no need for it any more. Thanks.--Kazemita1 (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Concerns
I have some serious concerns about this AFD and I'm sure admins will quickly see why. More eyes would be good. An early close might be better. Cheers, Stalwart111 22:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like things are more-or-less under control. I don't see any reason for an early close at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Close an RfC
3 Editors appear to be holding an article hostage by ignoring an RfC which went against them hereTalk:Progressive_Utilization_Theory#Proposal_to_replace_current_content. Can an admin close and summarize the consensus of the RfC so that an edit war is avoided (see Talk:Progressive_Utilization_Theory#Comments)? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The section entitled "Standard discretionary sanctions" in the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case is replaced with the following:
- Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted.
Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion.
For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Categories: